Case Title: In re Child of Jasmine B.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020 ME 62

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2020-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2020 ME 62 
Docket: 
Cum-19-416 
Submitted 
On Briefs: May 4, 2020 
Decided: 
May 12, 2020 
 
Panel: 
MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF JASMINE B. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Jasmine B. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland, 
Eggert, J.) finding that her child is in circumstances of jeopardy pursuant to 
22 M.R.S. § 4035(2) (2020) and ordering that the child remain in the custody 
of the Department of Health and Human Services.  She argues that the 
evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding that the child is in 
jeopardy.  We affirm the judgment. 
[¶2]  The Department sought a child protection order and preliminary 
protection order for the child, who was then two years old, on May 24, 2019.  
The Department’s petition alleged that the child was at risk of serious harm 
due to the mother’s volatility, including her violent and erratic behavior, and 
her lack of safe and stable housing.  A Department employee’s affidavit filed 
with the petition also recounted the Department’s two-year history with the 
mother, including several instances of the mother placing the child in unsafe 
 
2 
situations.  The court (Stanfill, J.) entered a preliminary order that same day, 
placing the child in the Department’s custody.  In early June of 2019, after a 
contested summary preliminary hearing, the court (Cashman, J.) entered an 
order continuing the preliminary protection order in effect and noting that the 
mother “had two mental health-related episodes” over the previous two 
months, which resulted in “hospital visits for evaluations,” and had “made 
statements of self-harm and was not in a position to care for [the child].”  
See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(4) (2020).   
[¶3]  The court (Eggert, J.) conducted a contested jeopardy hearing over 
two days in September of 2019.  Based on the evidence presented at that 
hearing, by order dated September 12, 2019, the court determined that the 
child was in circumstances of jeopardy.1  See 22 M.R.S. § 4002(1), (6) (2020).  
The mother timely appealed.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2020); M.R. App. P. 
2B(c)(1).   
[¶4]  The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support 
the court’s finding that the child is in circumstances of jeopardy.  We review 
the court’s factual findings for clear error and will affirm its jeopardy 
determination “unless there is no competent record evidence that can 
                                         
1  The court also entered a jeopardy order as to the father on grounds of abandonment; he does 
not appeal from that order.   
 
3 
rationally be understood to establish as more likely than not that the child 
was in circumstances of jeopardy to his or her health and welfare.”  
In re Children of Troy H., 2019 ME 154, ¶ 5, 218 A.3d 750 (quotation marks 
omitted). 
 
[¶5]  The court made the following findings of fact, which are supported 
by competent record evidence.  See id. 
 
[The m]other has had great difficulty managing her 
emotions both before DHHS involvement and since the filing of 
this petition.  She has threatened to commit suicide when she has 
been frustrated which would pose significant risks to [the child].  
She has real anger issues which cause her to react volubly against 
others and to threaten to give up as it is too hard.  [The child] 
would not be safe in her care until she has learned to control her 
emotions and to recognize the impact of her actions on [the child] 
and others . . . .   
 
 
[¶6]  These findings are supported by substantial evidence of the 
mother’s erratic and unsafe behavior, including testimony regarding 
threatening text messages the mother had sent to the relative currently caring 
for the child; the mother’s violent outbursts at another relative with whom 
she had been staying, including “banging her head in the wall that eventually 
created a hole” and backing her car into the relative’s car; and threats the 
mother made to Department employees, including statements that 
“sometimes she can control her mental health issues, but not always” and that 
 
4 
“people like [her] were the reason why there’s shootings.”  Contrary to the 
mother’s contentions, the court did not err in finding that returning the child 
to the mother’s custody would subject the child to a threat of serious harm.2  
See 22 M.R.S. § 4002(6); In re Child of Tiffany F., 2018 ME 137, ¶ 5, 195 A.3d 
84. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jason A. MacLean, Esq., Bridgton, for appellant mother 
Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Zack Paakkonen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office 
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and 
Human Services 
 
 
Portland District Court docket number PC-2019-28 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY 
                                         
2  The court’s finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the 
child, including “referral for counseling, arranging family team meetings, providing regular 
visitation, and caseworker services,” is also fully supported by the record.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4036-B(3) (2020); In re Children of Travis G., 2019 ME 20, ¶ 1 n.1, 201 A.3d 1224; In re Dakota P., 
2005 ME 2, ¶¶ 11-14, 863 A.2d 280.