Case Title: In re Aurora M.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018 ME 4

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 4 
Docket: 
Ken-17-308 
Submitted 
On Briefs: January 11, 2018 
Decided: 
January 23, 2018 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE AURORA M. et al. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  The father of Aurora M. and Juelz M. appeals from a judgment of 
the District Court (Augusta, E. Walker, J.) terminating his parental rights to the 
children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv) 
(2017).1  He contends that the guardian ad litem failed to satisfy his statutory 
obligations to conduct an in-person interview with the father and to notify the 
father’s attorney that the father was incarcerated before the cease 
reunification order went into effect.2  See 4 M.R.S. § 1554 (2017);3 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4005(1) (2017).  We disagree and affirm the judgment. 
                                         
1  The District Court (Augusta, J. French, J.) entered a judgment terminating the mother’s parental 
rights to the children after the mother consented to termination.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), 
(B)(1) (2017).  The mother does not appeal from that judgment. 
2  Counsel for the father filed an appellate brief containing only a procedural history and 
statement of facts, accompanied by a motion for enlargement of time to allow the father to 
personally file a supplemental brief.  Counsel stated in his motion that he was unable to find any 
arguable issues on appeal.  We granted the motion to allow the father to personally file a brief, 
which he did.  See In re M.C., 2014 ME 128, ¶¶ 6-7, 104 A.3d 139; In re William P., 2001 ME 25, 
765 A.2d 76. 
 
2 
I.  CASE HISTORY 
[¶2]  The court found by clear and convincing evidence the following 
facts, which are supported by competent evidence in the record.  See In re 
Hannah S., 2016 ME 32, ¶ 3, 133 A.3d 590. 
[¶3]  The father was the primary caregiver of the children before the 
Department took custody of the children in January 2016.  He has a lengthy 
history of illegal drug use.  When the children were in his care, he injected 
heroin at least four times a day and spent money on drugs instead of on basic 
necessities for the children.  The Department offered to provide the father 
with a substance abuse evaluation and counseling, but he refused to 
participate, stating that he needed more serious in-patient treatment.  He also 
blames his inability to pay even minimal fees and his lack of transportation for 
his inability to attend counseling. 
[¶4]  The father has a lengthy criminal history and is currently in a 
maximum-security facility after assaulting another inmate with a padlock 
while in a minimum-security facility.  He is expected to be released sometime 
during the summer of 2018.  The father has a history of domestic violence 
                                                                                                                                   
3  The Legislature repealed the sunset provision for this statute.  See P.L. 2017, ch. 138, § 1 
(emergency effective June 7, 2017) (repealing 4 M.R.S. § 1558, which had provided, “This chapter is 
repealed October 1, 2017.”). 
 
3 
against the children’s mother, with many of the incidents being witnessed by 
both children.  This has caused significant psychological damage to the 
children, who openly fear him; Aurora suffers from severe post-traumatic 
stress disorder as a result of witnessing the violence.  The father shows no 
understanding of the serious damage his abuse and neglect have caused his 
children and has no realistic plan for caring for them in the future. 
[¶5]  The father has done almost nothing to reunify with his two 
children.  He has had minimal contact with his attorney, his probation officer, 
the Department, and the court since the children were removed and has never 
inquired about visitation or even how the children are doing.  The father has 
failed to appear for court, and he has failed to notify the Department of his 
whereabouts and to notify his probation officer of address changes.  The court 
stated that it “understands that recovery is not a sprint, but is, instead, a 
marathon.  The problem is that Father still hasn’t even approached the 
starting line in this race.”  The children need a permanent home now and 
cannot wait for the father to get his life in order. 
 
4 
II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS 
[¶6]  “We review the court’s factual findings for clear error, evaluated 
pursuant to the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.”  In re 
Hannah S., 2016 ME 32, ¶ 7, 133 A.3d 590. 
A. 
Interview with Parent 
[¶7]  The father asserts that the guardian ad litem failed to conduct a 
face-to-face interview with him to discuss the children’s needs and the 
reunification plan, which the father alleges was a violation of the guardian 
ad litem’s statutory obligations.  The father does not assert that he was 
prejudiced by the alleged failure. 
[¶8]  In child protection matters, the guardian ad litem, acting as the 
court’s agent, “shall act in pursuit of the best interests of the child[ren].”  
22 M.R.S. § 4005(1)(B), (G).  To fulfill this duty, the guardian ad litem must 
conduct an investigation “to ascertain the facts.”  Id. § 4005(1)(B).  The 
investigation must include, “when possible and appropriate,” an interview 
with the parents.  Id. § 4005(1)(B)(5).  Section 4005 does not specify the 
manner or method by which any interview with the parents is to be 
conducted.  Cf. id. § 4005(1)(B) (requiring the guardian ad litem to have 
face-to-face contact with the children in the children’s home within seven 
 
5 
days of appointment by the court and at least once every three months 
thereafter or on a schedule established by the court). 
[¶9]  The court did not, and was not required to, address the extent of 
the guardian ad litem’s efforts to interview the father.  The court found, 
however, that the father did not maintain contact with his attorney, his 
probation officer, the Department, or the court; that the father failed to notify 
the Department of his whereabouts and changed his address without 
notifying his probation officer; and that the father failed to appear for court 
proceedings.  Furthermore, the court found that the father had a history of 
incarceration and that, at the time of the termination hearing, the father was 
serving a nineteen-month sentence for a probation violation and had been 
transferred from a minimum-security facility to a maximum-security facility 
after assaulting another inmate.  Under these circumstances, an interview 
with the father may not have been “possible and appropriate.”4  Id. 
[¶10]  Moreover, the guardian ad litem’s compliance with section 4005 
does not constitute a discrete element requiring proof in a parental rights 
termination hearing.  Cf. In re Hannah S., 2016 ME 32, ¶ 12, 133 A.3d 590 
(holding that the Department’s satisfaction of its statutory obligations is not a 
                                         
4  The court found, based on competent evidence in the record, that the father and the guardian 
ad litem both participated in a September 2016 family team meeting. 
 
6 
discrete element of proof that must be met for termination to occur); In re 
Doris G., 2006 ME 142, ¶ 17, 912 A.2d 572 (same). 
B. 
Notification of Incarceration 
[¶11]  The father also contends, based on his personal belief, that the 
guardian ad litem was aware that the father had become incarcerated in 
June 2016 while the order to cease reunification efforts was pending and that 
the guardian ad litem failed to notify the father’s counsel of the father’s 
incarceration in violation of his duties as a guardian ad litem.  The father 
contends that if the guardian ad litem had notified his attorney, then his 
attorney would have contacted him in jail, and his attorney would have 
contacted the Department to prevent the cease reunification order from going 
into effect.  The father’s argument fails for several reasons. 
[¶12]  First, the father’s assertion is based on an erroneous 
understanding of the historical facts.  On May 16, 2016, the father failed to 
appear for the jeopardy hearing after having been provided due notice.  The 
court (Fowle, J.) held a contested hearing in the father’s absence and entered 
an order finding jeopardy as to the father.  The court additionally found that 
the father’s compliance with the case plan had been “unacceptable” and that 
the father had failed to meet with the Department.  The court issued an order: 
 
7 
“[The father] shall have thirty days to engage in reunification services through 
the Department.  If he fails to do so, a cease reunification order will enter on 
6/16/16.” 
[¶13]  On June 8, 2016, the father was arrested for unlawful possession 
of scheduled drugs (Class C), 17-A M.R.S. § 1107-A(1)(B)(1) (2017).  He was 
not released on bail until June 20, by which time the cease reunification order 
had been entered.  Three days after the father was released on bail, on 
June 23, he was arrested for violation of condition of release (Class E), 
15 M.R.S. § 1092(1)(A) (2017), and was held without bail.  On June 30, the 
guardian ad litem from this child protection matter was appointed to 
represent the father in the criminal matter.  Recognizing the conflict of 
interest, the guardian ad litem immediately and appropriately filed a motion 
to withdraw in the criminal matter, and another attorney was appointed to 
handle the father’s criminal case.  Thus, the guardian ad litem was not aware 
of the father’s incarceration status during the thirty-day period when the 
cease reunification order was pending, and, therefore, could not have known 
to notify the father’s attorney, assuming arguendo that he had an obligation to 
make such a notification.  Contrary to the father’s assertion, the evidence in 
 
8 
the record establishes that the guardian ad litem acted in good faith in 
carrying out his duties. 
[¶14]  Second, although the guardian ad litem has a statutory duty to act 
in 
the 
best 
interests 
of 
the 
children—which 
includes 
effectively 
communicating with all parties, maintaining the highest standards of 
professionalism, and recognizing that timely resolution serves the best 
interests of the children and their need for stability—sections 1554 and 4005 
do not impose an express obligation on a guardian ad litem to immediately 
notify a parent’s counsel in a child protection matter that the parent has 
become incarcerated. 
[¶15]  Third, there is no evidence in the record indicating that the father 
was prevented from contacting, or was unable to contact, his attorney or the 
Department on his own.  There is ample record evidence, however, that the 
father did not maintain contact with the other parties involved in these 
proceedings and did not make his whereabouts known when he was not 
incarcerated.  Furthermore, the court (E. Walker, J.) found that the father 
“ha[d] done virtually nothing to reunify with his two children.”  Given that the 
father failed to participate in services from the time the case began in 
January 2016 to the termination of his parental rights in June 2017, we are not 
 
9 
persuaded by the father’s argument that, but for the guardian ad litem’s 
alleged failure to notify his attorney of his incarceration status in June 2016, 
he would have contacted the Department to engage in reunification services. 
C. 
Sufficiency of the Evidence 
[¶16]  Further, although not challenged by the father on appeal, the 
court’s findings that father is unfit and that termination is in the children’s 
best interests does not reflect any error or abuse of discretion.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2); In re Aubrey R., 2017 ME 37, ¶ 8, 157 A.3d 212. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Douglas F. Jennings, Esq., Walker & Jennings, PA, Hallowell, and the father 
personally, for appellant father 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of 
the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human 
Services 
 
 
Augusta District Court docket number PC-2016-01 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY