Title: In re Child of Matthew R.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 148 
Docket: 
Lin-18-72 
Submitted 
On Briefs: September 26, 2018 
Decided: 
November 8, 2018 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF MATTHEW R. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Matthew R. appeals from a judgment of the District Court 
(Wiscasset, Raimondi, J.) terminating his parental rights to his son.  He argues 
that the court erred and abused its discretion in finding that he was unwilling 
or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that those circumstances were 
unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs 
and in finding that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s 
best interest.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i) (2017).  We affirm the 
judgment. 
[¶2]  In August 2016, while the child was residing with a family member 
pursuant to a safety plan between the Department of Health and Human 
Services and the child’s parents, the Department filed a petition for a child 
protection order.  The petition alleged that the mother had a significant 
substance abuse problem with related periods of incarceration and that the 
 
2 
father was unable to maintain a safe, clean home unaffected by the mother’s 
drug abuse.  On November 3, 2016, the court entered an agreed-upon jeopardy 
order with respect to each parent.  Jeopardy as to the father arose from the 
father’s failure to protect the child from being exposed to risks resulting from 
the mother’s drug abuse, including an unsanitary home visited by unsafe 
people.  Jeopardy was also based on the father’s inability to exercise 
independent judgment, separate from the mother, to protect the child.  The 
court placed the child in the Department’s custody and maintained the kinship 
placement.   
[¶3]  By August 2017, the mother had been incarcerated for violating 
probation and conditions of house arrest, and the Department petitioned to 
terminate both parents’ parental rights.  The petition alleged that the mother 
had proved unable to stop using drugs and that the father, who would not 
separate from the mother, was unrealistically confident that she would recover 
from her addiction and that she could be trusted with the child’s care.   
[¶4]  The termination hearing was held over the course of three days—
December 5, 18, and 19, 2017.  The court then, upon the mother’s consent, 
entered a judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights.  After considering 
all of the evidence presented, the court carefully considered the facts weighing 
 
3 
against termination and those weighing in favor of termination and found, by 
clear and convincing evidence, the following facts with respect to the father.  
See In re Children of Melissa F., 2018 ME 110, ¶ 11, 191 A.3d 348. 
 
There are a number of factors that would support the 
conclusion that termination is not appropriate in this case.  [The 
father] does not have a problem with substance abuse.  He has 
consistently held down a full-time job . . . for more than 5 years.  He 
has facially complied with some of the Department’s requirements.  
He has obtained safe and appropriate housing.  He did participate 
in a CODE [court ordered diagnostic] evaluation.  He has attended 
counseling.  He has visited regularly and consistently with [the 
child].  He has met and co-operated with the Department’s 
caseworker.  The CODE evaluator . . . makes it clear that lack of 
intelligence and capacity to parent is not an issue here.  [The father] 
and [the child] have a bond with each other.  There is no question 
that [the father] cares about [the child].  All those factors weigh 
against termination. 
 
 
The factors that support termination are clearly laid out in 
the Guardian’s final summary: 
 
[The father] has a problematic co-dependent relationship 
with [the mother] that has spanned over numerous 
long-term incarcerations and continued drug use.  His 
unyielding loyalty to [the mother] comes at the price of 
jeopardizing [the child]’s safety.  [The father]’s inability 
and/or refusal to recognize the extent of [the mother]’s drug 
use and take proactive measures to protect [the child] from 
the risk [the mother]’s substance abuse poses has caused 
[the father] to be an unsafe caregiver for [the child].  The only 
reason [the father] is safely able to have unsupervised 
visitation with [the child] now is because [the mother] is 
incarcerated and [the child] is not at risk of being exposed to 
her substance abuse or the effects thereof.   
 
 
4 
 
It is difficult for the court to reconcile [the father]’s 
intelligence level and capacity to parent with [the child]’s condition 
and the conditions in which [the child] was living when he came 
into care.  As the Guardian noted in her report dated [August] 2016: 
“At almost 5 years old, [the child has significant speech delays].”  At 
the home visit immediately preceding the filing of the petition, 
there was a loaded syringe within [the child]’s reach on the porch.  
The home was filthy with trash and feces on the floor.  Even during 
the pendency of this case unsanitary conditions persisted until the 
home was foreclosed upon and [the mother] went to jail.  [The 
mother] was in jail for two years after [the child]’s birth.  During 
that time [the father] was responsible for [the child]’s care.  [The 
child]’s condition as of the filing of the Department’s petition is the 
most compelling evidence as to the care and quality of parenting 
provided by both [the father] and [the mother].   
 
 
The question presented to the court is how a competent, 
caring parent could allow these things to happen, and if anything 
has changed such that [the child] would be safe in [the father]’s 
care in the future. 
 
 
[The father]’s updated reunification plan as of [May 2017] 
provided that, among other things: 
 
• He was to attend Al-Anon meetings; 
 
• Demonstrate that he is able to make independent judgments 
in the best interest of [the child]; 
 
• Know who the people are that are around [the child] and 
who associates with [the mother]; 
 
• Be involved in [the child]’s pediatrician, dental, eye doctor 
and Early Headstart appointments and follow through with 
[the child]’s provider’s recommendations; and 
 
 
5 
• Make a plan in the event that [the mother] relapses or 
associates with people who are known to use drugs and/ or 
have criminal involvement.   
 
 
[The father] never attended Al-Anon meetings.  These were 
particularly recommended to assist him in dealing with his issues 
of co-dependency with respect to [the mother].  He did go to 
counseling, but both his counselors were of the opinion that he was 
not engaged in the counseling or motivated to change.  He was 
attending because the Department made it a requirement for 
reunification.   
 
 
[The father] has not demonstrated that he is able to make 
independent judgments in the best interest of [the child].  He lost 
unsupervised visitation with [the child] because he allowed [the 
mother] to have unsupervised contact with [the child] in violation 
of DHHS restrictions. . . .  
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
[The father] is not a bad man.  He would not intentionally 
expend energy to commit a bad act or to harm someone.  [The 
father] lives life in survival mode.  Life happens to him.  He does 
what he can to meet his basic needs.  He has support from his family 
members who step in to help—if they can—in the event of 
catastrophe.  [The father] does not appear to have the insight or 
emotional energy to care for others or to understand the needs of 
others.  He addresses [the mother]’s needs because she insists 
upon it.  Otherwise, [the father] does what he has to do to get by as 
best he can.  He works.  He cares for [the child] in his way, but has 
no understanding of [the child]’s needs, and, therefore, no concept 
of how to meet them.   
 
 
[The father]’s most recent counselor testified at hearing that 
one of [the father]’s positive qualities was steadfastness and 
loyalty.  He has been consistently loyal to [the mother].  When [the 
mother] is in his life, [the mother] and her needs are the focus of 
his attention.  The irony of this is that [the father]’s loyalty, 
 
6 
dependence and deference to [the mother] causes him to be blind 
to the safety issues caused by her substance abuse.  [The child] has 
been put at risk as a result.  [The father]’s focus on survival and on 
[the mother]’s needs has left no room for understanding or insight 
with respect to [the child]’s needs.  Nothing about this has changed 
during the pendency of this case.  [The father]’s continued 
dependence on [the mother] and lack of insight compels the finding 
that [the child] would continue to be at risk if returned to [the 
father]’s care.   
 
. . . . 
 
 
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the court finds by clear 
and convincing evidence that [the father] is unwilling or unable to 
protect [the child] from jeopardy and these circumstances are 
unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to 
meet [the child]’s needs. 
 
 
The court also finds that it is in [the child]’s best interest to 
terminate the parental rights of [the father]. . . . 
 
 
. . . . 
 
. . . . [The child] . . . is doing very well [in his current 
placement], and thriving in his environment.  When he first came 
to [the placement], he . . . had significant . . . delays.  He is now 
developmentally on target and his [abilities] ha[ve] improved 
immeasurably. . . . [H]e has received all the medical, educational 
and special services he needs to address the issues that existed 
when he came into care.   
 
 
[¶5]  The father timely appealed from the judgment.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 
(2017); M.R. App. P. 2A(a), 2B(c)(1).   
 
[¶6]  Based on these facts, which have strong evidentiary support, the 
court did not err in finding that, despite his efforts to comply with the services 
 
7 
arranged by the Department, the father remains unable to understand the 
child’s needs and protect him from the jeopardy presented by the mother’s 
substance abuse and related conduct within a time that is reasonably calculated 
to meet the child’s needs.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i); In re Thomas D., 
2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 854 A.2d 195.  The father argues that he was placed in an 
untenable position because to retain his parental rights to the child he would 
have to implicate the mother in criminal conduct and break off contact with her 
while she was in prison and expecting their second child.  The findings of the 
court were, however, properly focused on the needs of the child as required by 
statute.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i).  The court found, with evidentiary 
support, that the father understood and responded to the mother’s clearly 
articulated wishes but did not understand the child’s needs and could not 
prioritize them—a circumstance that was not likely to change within a time 
reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.  See id.   
 
[¶7]  Nor did the court err or abuse its discretion in determining that the 
termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.  See 
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a); In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 
889 A.2d 297.  The court’s determination is fully supported by its findings that 
the child needs nothing short of permanency as he recovers from a young 
 
8 
childhood during which the parents exposed him to damaging instability and 
living conditions that did not meet his developmental needs.1   
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Kristina Dougherty, Esq., Wise Old Law, LLC, Portland, for appellant father 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office 
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human 
Services 
 
 
Wiscasset District Court docket number PC-2016-8 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY 
 
 
 
                                         
1  The child was so badly deprived of love and support in his early years with both parents that he 
was unable to speak in clear words when he was five years old.  He has made rapid and remarkable 
progress since being placed away from his parents.