Title: In re Child of Heath D.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 131 
Docket: 
Pen-18-128 
Submitted 
On Briefs: September 26, 2018 
Decided: 
October 4, 2018 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF HEATH D. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Heath D. and Francine E. appeal from a judgment of the District 
Court (Bangor, Jordan, J.) terminating their parental rights pursuant to 
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv) (2017).  The mother and father 
both argue that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the 
findings of parental unfitness.  The father additionally argues that the 
Department of Health and Human Services failed to satisfy its responsibilities 
in making reasonable rehabilitation and reunification efforts.  We affirm the 
judgment.   
[¶2]  The Department filed a child protection petition in June 2016, two 
weeks after the child was born.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4032 (2017).  The petition 
alleged neglect and threat of neglect by the mother due to substance abuse and 
exposure to unsafe persons, including the father.  The petition also alleged 
neglect or the threat of neglect by the father as a result of untreated mental 
 
2 
health issues and substance abuse.  A week later, the court (Lucy, J.) granted a 
preliminary protection order after the maternal grandmother overdosed in the 
mother’s home with the child present and the mother failed to prevent contact 
between the father and the child.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4034 (2017).   
[¶3]  In October 2016, the court (Jordan, J.) entered a jeopardy order by 
agreement.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2017).  The court found jeopardy as to the 
mother because of 
(1) Neglect and threat of neglect due to failure to protect from 
unsafe people (2) inadequately addressed mental health issues and 
(3) history of substance abuse. 
 
Jeopardy was found as to the father because of “past and present substance 
abuse and untreated mental health issues, to wit anxiety.”   
 
[¶4]  Included in the jeopardy order were detailed requirements for both 
parents’ reunification with the child.  Both parents were to participate in 
random, observed drug screens; use only prescribed medications; allow 
announced and unannounced visits by the Department and the guardian 
ad litem; maintain monthly contact with the Department; participate and 
engage in substance abuse and mental health counseling; and avoid contact 
with unsafe individuals.  Both parents also agreed to participate in supervised 
visits with the child for as long as it remained in the child’s best interest.  The 
 
3 
father additionally agreed to participate in a level-of-care assessment by a 
substance abuse counseling agency and to participate in an informational 
session at the Family Treatment Drug Court.   
 
[¶5]  The Department petitioned for termination of both parents’ 
parental rights in July 2017.  After a three-day hearing on the petition, the court 
found, by clear and convincing evidence, that both parents are unwilling or 
unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that these circumstances are 
unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s 
needs; the parents are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child 
and that these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably 
calculated to meet the child’s needs; and the parents failed to make a good faith 
effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv); In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 854 A.2d 
195.  The court based this determination on the following findings of fact: 
The difficult aspect of this case is that the parents have done 
some positive work.  Additionally, the Court finds that it is quite 
clear that they love their child.  The Court also finds that it is quite 
clear that for the timeframe of an hour and a half to two hours they 
are able to function appropriately with the child.  However, the 
parents’ inconsistency with services and visits call into question 
their ability to parent on a daily basis.   
 
The random drug tests were the primary method that could 
help the parents prove that they were ready to reunify with their 
 
4 
child.  They actively avoided those random drug tests.  They 
avoided those tests even after they knew that a termination of 
parental rights petition had been filed and pretried on August 18, 
2017.  The parents, therefore, had five months of living under the 
threat of termination of their parental rights.  Knowing that the 
Department was pushing for successful random drug tests as an 
indicator of their having made enough progress to have their child 
returned to them, they still avoided demonstrating their 
willingness to take the steps necessary to show that jeopardy was 
alleviated.   
 
In addition to their evasion of random screening and 
[Suboxone] strip counts, their failure to maintain reliable contact 
with the Department, the father’s recent possession of numerous 
syringes, the mother’s possession of a syringe in January 2017, and 
their joint deception regarding their continuing relationship all 
lead the Court to conclude that jeopardy has not been alleviated.  
The father has no stable housing, and it looks as if the mother may 
lose her housing as a result of her pending eviction.  The Court 
concludes that it cannot responsibly place this child with either 
parent. 
 
The case started June 23, 2016.  As of the date of the 
termination hearing, the case had been in the Court for nineteen 
months.  The child has been in the State’s custody for a little over 
eighteen months.  The Court concludes that it would take many 
more months to reach permanency, even if the parents 
unexpectedly cooperate fully.  The child does not have the time to 
wait in limbo for the uncertain outcome of the parents’ efforts.  The 
child deserves permanency sooner than they can provide. 
 
. . . .  
 
. . . Finally, the Court finds it in the child’s best interests to be 
free[d] for adoption into a stable and loving home.  [The child] has 
lived in his current home since May of 2017.  The Guardian Ad 
Litem makes clear that [the child] identifies those people as his 
parents and their daughter as his family.   
 
5 
 
[¶6]  Based on these findings of fact, all of which are supported by 
competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its unfitness 
determination.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv); In re A.M., 
2012 ME 118, ¶ 29, 55 A.3d 463.  Nor did the court err or abuse its discretion 
by determining that it was in the child’s best interest to terminate both parents’ 
parental rights.  See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4050(2), (3) (2017); 4055(1)(B)(2)(a); In re 
B.P., 2015 ME 139, ¶ 19, 126 A.3d 713.   
[¶7]  The father additionally argues that the court erred in determining 
that the Department satisfied its responsibilities in implementing the 
rehabilitation and reunification plan.  Contrary to the father’s argument, 
competent evidence supports the court’s finding that the Department satisfied 
its obligations under the statute.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4041(1-A)(1), (3) (2017); In re 
Isabelle W., 2017 ME 81, ¶ 8 n.3, 159 A.3d 1225.  The Department made 
continued attempts to contact the parents throughout the process, provided 
access to mental health and substance abuse services, provided payment for 
transportation, and had frank conversations regarding what was required of 
the parents for successful reunification.  See In re Landon S., 2017 ME 199, ¶ 5, 
171 A.3d 186.  Despite the Department’s efforts, the parents were still 
 
6 
unsuccessful in reunification.  See In re Child of Lindsay D., 2018 ME 87, ¶¶ 7-9, 
188 A.3d 180. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Laura P. Shaw, Esq., Camden Law LLP, Camden, for appellant father 
 
Amy McNally, Esq., Woodman Edmands Danylik Austin Smith & Jacques, P.A., 
Biddeford, for appellant mother 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the 
Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human 
Services 
 
 
Bangor District Court docket number PC-2016-36 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY