Title: In re River B.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 77 
Docket: 
Yor-16-515 
Submitted 
On Briefs: April 27, 2017 
Decided: 
May 4, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE RIVER B. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
 
[¶1]  The mother of River B. appeals from a judgment of the District 
Court (Biddeford, Foster, J.) terminating her parental rights to her child 
pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2016).  She challenges the sufficiency 
of the evidence to support the judgment.  Because the evidence supports the 
court’s findings, we affirm the judgment. 
 
[¶2]  Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found, by 
clear and convincing evidence, that the mother is unwilling or unable to 
protect the child from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to 
change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; that the 
mother is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time 
that is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and that the mother 
has failed to make a good faith effort to reunify with the child.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv).  It also found, by clear and convincing 
 
2 
evidence, that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest.  See 
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).  The court based this determination on the 
following specific findings of fact. 
 
[¶3]  The mother is addicted to prescription drugs, including opiates 
and benzodiazepines, and abuses Neurontin.  She also suffers from mental 
health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive 
disorder, and anxiety.  The mother was arrested for operating a vehicle under 
the influence with the child’s half-sibling in the back seat, and continued to 
drive after the suspension of her license.  She also appeared to be under the 
influence of drugs during supervised visits with the child. 
[¶4]  Although the Department has provided her with services to 
address her addiction and mental health issues, she has not made significant 
progress in reunifying with the child over the past two years.  Notably, despite 
these services, the mother has persisted in seeking out prescription 
medications from multiple medical providers and pharmacies across two 
states under false pretenses and violating provisions of the court’s jeopardy 
order regarding the child.1  She was dismissed from her psychiatrist’s care for 
                                         
1  The court found that the mother’s claim that this drug-seeking behavior was undertaken by an 
imposter who stole her identity is simply not credible based on abundant evidence in this case.  It 
also found that her claim that two positive drug tests during the pendency of this child protection 
proceeding were the result of an assailant slipping her drugs without her knowledge is also not 
 
3 
misuse of medications and was not being treated by a psychiatrist at the time 
of the termination hearing. 
[¶5]  The child, now almost three and a half years old, was born drug 
affected.  He has been out of the mother’s care for two years.  He is happy, 
healthy, and meeting his developmental milestones.  He has been living with 
his paternal grandfather; they are bonded, and the grandfather would like to 
adopt the child. 
 
[¶6]  Given these findings, the court did not err in finding, by clear and 
convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness and that 
termination is in the best interest of the child.  See In re M.S., 2014 ME 54, 
¶¶ 13, 15, 90 A.3d 443.  Nor did it abuse its discretion in determining that 
termination is in the child’s best interest.  See In re Alivia B., 2010 ME 112, 
¶ 12, 8 A.3d 625.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 
 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                   
credible.  See In re I.S., 2015 ME 100, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 105 (“[I]t was within the court’s province, as 
fact-finder, to determine the weight and credibility to be afforded to evidence.”). 
 
4 
Valerie A Randall, Esq., Fairfield & Associates, P.A., Portland, for 
appellant Mother 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Courtney Goodwin, Asst. Atty. 
Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of 
Maine 
 
 
Biddeford District Court docket number PC-2015-8 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY