Case Title: In re Zarianna C.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018 ME 11

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

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

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 11 
Docket: 
Ken-17-363 
Submitted 
    On Briefs: January 11, 2018 
Decided: 
January 23, 2018 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE ZARIANNA C. et al. 
 
PER CURIAM 
 
[¶1]  The father of Zarianna C., Zariyah C., and Zaylah C. appeals from a 
judgment of the District Court (Waterville, Stanfill, 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)-(ii) (2017).1  After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence 
supports the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its discretionary 
determination that termination is in the children’s best interests.  Accordingly, 
we affirm the judgment. 
 
[¶2]  Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found by 
clear and convincing evidence that the father (1) is unwilling or unable to 
protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to 
meet their needs and (2) is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for them 
within that time frame.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii).  The court 
                                         
1  The mother consented to a termination of her parental rights and is not a party to this appeal. 
 
2 
also found that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s 
best interests.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).  We review the factual 
findings supporting the unfitness determination for clear error, see 
In re Logan M., 2017 ME 23, ¶ 3, 155 A.3d 430, and apply the same standard to 
the factual findings supporting the best interest determination, although we 
review the court’s ultimate conclusion that termination is in the children’s 
best interests “for an abuse of discretion, viewing the facts, and the weight to 
be given them, through the trial court’s lens,” and giving the court’s judgment 
“substantial deference,” In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66, ¶ 33, 159 A.3d 345 
(quotation marks omitted). 
 
[¶3]  The court based its determination on the following findings of fact: 
This case began in November 2015, but the family’s 
involvement with the Department started long before that.  The 
first case was filed in December 2011 and involved only Zarianna 
because the other two girls had not yet been born.  [T]he case was 
dismissed . . . after some two years with successful reunification 
with the mother.  The second case involved both Zarianna and 
Zariyah, and was filed August 22, 2014, approximate[ly] 8 months 
later.  That case was dismissed after about 14 months, in October 
2015.  The dismissal was ordered after entry of a Parental Rights 
Judgment which provided for the girls to live with their mother 
and have supervised visits with their father.  [The father] was 
incarcerated at the time. 
 
This case was filed November 6, 2015, only one month after 
the last case was dismissed.  [The current foster parents] have 
been the foster placement for all three cases.  At this point, 
 
3 
Zarianna has lived with them almost 5 years of her life and 
Zariyah for almost 3 years of her life.  Zaylah has lived with the 
[foster parents] since she was 9 months old and she is now over 
two years old.  In short, all three girls have lived with the [foster 
parents] the majority of their short lives. 
 
 
The Jeopardy Order in this case found that the girls were in 
jeopardy based on [the father]’s “past extensive and severe 
substance abuse issues; past perpetration of domestic violence, 
continued criminal activity and incarcerations; and recent 
incarceration that prevents [the father] from being a caregiver to 
the children.”  [The father] has never been the primary caregiver 
for the children, and did not engage in substantial reunification 
services or efforts during either of the first two cases. 
 
After years of failing to appropriately take care of the girls, 
[the father] began to try to make changes in his life.  He has felony 
drug convictions from 2009 and 2010, but not since then.  He has 
three OUI convictions, in 2009, 2013, and 2014.  He went through 
Drug Court.  He has a significant substance abuse history that has 
made him unavailable for the children.  He started substance 
abuse and [dual] diagnosis counseling in August 2016 but was 
discharged for missing appointments.  He had started again with 
another counselor by the time of the hearing, but had only seen 
that counselor 4 times and was also suspended for his attendance.  
He claims he no longer uses any drugs and has not had a drink 
since his birthday in September 2016.  But, he tested positive for 
alcohol on October 26, 2016[,] and tested positive for cocaine on 
January 31, May 18 and May 31, 2017.  He continues to use 
marijuana regularly.  He has a medical marijuana card but obtains 
his marijuana off the street.  Indeed, his explanation for the failed 
drug tests is that his marijuana must have been tainted, an 
explanation the court rejects.  Thus, although he seems to have 
made good progress with his substance abuse, he clearly has not 
obtained consistent sobriety. 
 
 
[The father] consistently denied any domestic violence 
history and therefore did not address that issue.  Despite that 
 
4 
denial, he recently began a certified batterer’s intervention group 
and was about 12 weeks into the 48-week program at [the] time 
of trial.  The court is persuaded by the evidence, including prior 
findings, 
Zarianna’s 
statements 
and 
Zarianna’s 
reaction 
(nightmares with fear of being hit) that there was violence . . . 
between [the father] and [the mother] and that at least the older 
two children were also victims.  It does not appear [that the 
father] has taken responsibility for those actions. 
 
Although affectionate and loving, [the father] has not 
demonstrated that he is able to manage all three children as their 
primary caretaker.  He has struggled to visit consistently.  
[Supervised visits were] discontinued in January or February 
because of missed sessions.  The visits are chaotic, and [the 
father] is reluctant to follow through with direction or to set 
boundaries.  He enrolled in a parenting class (Peaceful Parenting 
of Young Children) but only attended two out [of] the three 
workshops in November 2016. 
 
The issue presented to the court is whether [the father] has 
the ability to meet the needs of the children—to protect them 
from serious harm and take responsibility for them—within an 
appropriate time frame.  [The father] has progressed in the last 
year and is addressing the issues that exist in his case, and he has 
come a long way.  Nonetheless, the court is persuaded by clear 
and convincing evidence that he does not have the ability to 
provide a consistent, safe, stable and predictable environment for 
the girls, which is the environment these children must have. . . . 
Indeed, [the father] himself has acknowledged that there is still 
work to be done. 
 
 
The court is also persuaded by clear and convincing 
evidence that [the father] is not able to do what he needs to do 
within a time reasonably calculated to meet the needs of the 
children. . . . This case has been pending for well over 19 months, 
and follows shortly after another episode of care for 14 months, 
which followed an episode of care for 2 years.  Reunification 
services have been available for years.  The children have all been 
 
5 
in foster care for the majority of their young lives.  Zarianna in 
particular is very anxious and “just wants it to be over” and to be 
reassured she can stay with the [the foster parents], the place and 
family she calls home.  Permanency is of the utmost critical 
importance for these children, and they cannot wait any longer. 
 
. . . . 
 
The [foster parents] would adopt the girls if they are freed 
for adoption.  The children have lived with the [foster parents] 
most of their lives.  They are very attached and bonded with them.  
They seek out [the foster parents] for all their needs.  Indeed, it 
can be hard for the younger children to separate from their foster 
parents.  Zarianna is the only one old enough to express a 
preference, and she has clearly and repeatedly stated that she 
wants to stay where she is.  Given the strong public policy 
favoring permanency for children, the court has no difficulty in 
finding that termination is clearly in the children’s best interest.  
Zarianna, Zariyah and Zaylah cannot wait any longer; they are 
entitled to permanency now. 
 
(Citations omitted). 
 
[¶4]  Given these findings, all of which are supported by competent 
evidence in the record, the court did not err in its determination of unfitness, 
nor did it err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the 
father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, is in the 
children’s best interests.  See In re Logan M., 2017 ME 23, ¶ 3, 155 A.3d 430; 
In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297. 
 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jason R. Ranger, Esq., Lewiston, for appellant father 
 
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief 
 
 
Waterville District Court docket number PC-2015-34 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY