Title: In re Child of Edward F.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 159 
Docket: 
Aro-18-262 
Submitted 
On Briefs: November 28, 2018 
Decided: 
December 6, 2018 
 
 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILDREN OF EDWARD F. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Edward F. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Presque 
Isle, Roberts, J.) terminating his parental rights to his three children.1  We affirm 
the judgment.    
[¶2]  In March 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services filed 
a petition for preliminary protection and a child protection petition with 
respect to the father’s three children.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and 
(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), and (iv) (2017).  The petition alleged that the children were in 
jeopardy from their father due to an “immediate risk of serious harm due to 
threat of physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment and neglect.”  
The court granted the Department’s petition for a preliminary protection order, 
and the children were placed with the Department.    
                                         
1  The Department did not seek to terminate the mother’s parental rights.   
 
 
2 
[¶3]  In September 2017, the court (Rushlau, J.) entered a jeopardy order 
based on the father’s issues with domestic violence, substance abuse, and 
inappropriate physical force used in discipline.  The court’s permanency 
planning order included requirements that the father complete a mental health 
assessment, substance abuse assessment, sex offender risk evaluation, 
psychological evaluation, and an evaluation for a batterer’s intervention 
program.  The father participated in the mental health evaluation but refused 
to engage in any other services.    
[¶4]  The following January, the Department filed a petition for 
termination of the father’s parental rights.  On June 11, 2018, the court 
(Roberts, J.) held a hearing on the Department’s petition.  Notwithstanding 
proper notice being provided to him, the father failed to appear at the hearing.  
Counsel appointed to represent the father did appear at the hearing.   
[¶5]  On June 12, 2018, the court granted the Department’s petition to 
terminate the father’s parental rights.  Based on the testimony presented at the 
hearing and other competent evidence in the record, the court found by clear 
and convincing evidence that (1) the father is unwilling or unable to protect the 
children from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within 
a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs; (2) the 
 
 
3 
father failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the 
children; and (3) termination of the father’s parental rights is in the best 
interests of the children.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), and (iv). 
[¶6]  The court based its decision to terminate the father’s rights on the 
following factual findings, all of which are supported by competent evidence in 
the record.   
The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence, that with 
respect to the father, . . . the State has met its burden of proof with 
respect to subsections 1 and 4.  [The father’s] relationship with [the 
mother] was marred by domestic violence to a degree which would 
jeopardize the children’s safety.  The arguments between the 
parents with screaming, angry behaviors had an impact on the 
children.  [The father] used a belt on his children to a degree that 
was excessive and abusive.  [The father] became angry and 
potentially violent when abusing alcohol. . . .  The impact of all this 
[including other forms of abuse] on the children has been to cause 
delays developmentally.  [The oldest and middle child] have been 
diagnosed with [serious mental health diagnoses] resulting from 
their violent home life.  [The father’s] visits with the children were 
discontinued in November of 2017, due to his aggressive behaviors 
and emails.  The Department made reasonable efforts to reunify 
and rehabilitate the family.  Those reasonable efforts regarding the 
father consisted of requests that he engage in assessments and 
counseling.  [The father] attended a mental health assessment, but 
declined to participate in the recommended therapy.  He refused to 
attend appointments for assessments related to substance abuse, 
sex offender risk evaluation or batterer’s intervention.  He 
indicated that he would not participate in any services arranged by 
the Department.  He has exhibited quick frustration and anger 
before the court.  He has chosen not to engage in the services that 
would enable him to be reunified with his children.  His failure to 
 
 
4 
attend a TPR hearing demonstrates that his focus [is] on combat 
with the Department rather than reunification with his children.[2]    
 
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DHHS 
offered [the father] appropriate services and referred [him] to 
providers.  He was simply unwilling or unable to engage or make 
changes.  This court finds that there is nothing more that DHHS 
could have done to assist [the father] in this case. 
 
[The mother] attends individual mental health therapy.  She 
has maintained employment.  [The mother] is working with the 
children’s therapist to attempt to understand and meet their 
emotional needs.  [She] obtained a Protection from Abuse Order 
regarding [the father] and has called law enforcement twice 
regarding violations of the order.  [The mother’s] efforts at 
reunification with her children can only progress if [the father] is 
out of the picture.  It is in the children’s best interest to allow their 
mother the best opportunity for rehabilitation.    
 
The children reside in the home of [their foster parents].  
[The foster parents] have an understanding of the children’s 
emotional needs and the vigilance required to monitor their 
behaviors.  All three children arrived at the foster home with 
serious issues.  The [foster parents] have supported their therapy 
while providing the safety and consistency that they need.  The 
children have made significant progress.  Their continued progress 
requires that they have no contact with their father.   
 
The court must look at whether [the father] will be able to 
protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably 
calculated to meet their needs, and he cannot. . . .  The children have 
been in DHHS custody for approximately 16 months.  Each month 
is a long time in the lives of children of their ages.  With no 
indication that [the father] intends to participate in the process of 
rehabilitation and reunification, it is apparent that he cannot 
                                         
2  The record contains evidence of violent and threatening emails sent by the father to individuals 
attempting to help his children. 
 
 
5 
alleviate jeopardy for the children within a time reasonably 
calculated to meet their needs.   
 
 
 
. . . .  
 
 
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that [the 
father] is unable to protect [the children] from Jeopardy and these 
circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is 
reasonably calculated to meet their needs.  This court also finds by 
clear and convincing evidence that [the father] has failed to make a 
good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children.  
 
 
Finally, the court finds that it is in the best interest [of the 
children] that their father’s parental rights be terminated to allow 
their mother the best opportunity to rehabilitate and reunify with 
them.  
 
 
[¶7]  The father timely appealed.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2017); M.R. App. 
P. 2B(c)(1).  Pursuant to the process outlined in In re M.C., 2014 ME 128, ¶ 7, 
104 A.3d 139, counsel for the father timely filed a brief containing the factual 
and procedural history of the case, stating that he believed that there are no 
meritorious issues for appeal.  Counsel also filed a motion for an enlargement 
of time to allow the father to personally file a supplemental brief.  Although we 
granted the father an enlargement of time to file a supplemental brief, the father 
did not do so by the deadline specified in the order.  
[¶8]  Based on the facts that the court found, all of which have evidentiary 
support, the court did not err in finding that the father remains unable to 
protect the children from jeopardy within a time that is reasonably calculated 
 
 
6 
to meet their needs and has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and 
reunify with the children.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) and (iv); In re 
Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 854 A.2d 195.  Nor did the court err or abuse its 
discretion in determining that the termination of the father’s parental rights 
was in the children’s best interests.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a); In re A.H., 
2013 ME 85, ¶ 16, 77 A.3d 1012.  
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Christopher S. Berryment, Esq., Mexico, for appellant father 
 
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief 
 
 
Presque Isle District Court docket number PC-2017-3 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY