Title: In re Child of Whitney M.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2020 ME 29 
Docket: 
Cum-19-410 
Submitted 
On Briefs: February 26, 2020 
Decided: 
March 5, 2020 
 
Panel: 
MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF WHITNEY M. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Whitney M. appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court 
(Bridgton, Powers, J.) finding that her child is in circumstances of jeopardy 
pursuant to 22 M.R.S. §§ 4002(6), 4035(2) (2018), and ordering that the child 
remain in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.  She 
contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s 
determination that the child is in jeopardy.  We affirm the judgment. 
[¶2]  In May of 2019, the Department filed a petition for a child 
protection order and preliminary protection order for the child, who was then 
six years old.  The petition alleged that the child’s father—who had, just a few 
days earlier, been granted temporary sole parental rights and responsibilities 
pursuant to a temporary protection from abuse order he had obtained against 
the child’s mother—had been hospitalized and was currently unable to care 
for the child.  The petition stated that the child was at risk due to the 
 
2 
substance abuse and physical violence of the mother, who was also prevented 
from having any contact with the child pursuant to the temporary protection 
order.1  The court (Dobson, J.) entered a preliminary protection order that day, 
placing the child in the Department’s custody.  The mother waived the 
opportunity for a summary preliminary hearing.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(4) 
(2018).   
[¶3]  The court (Powers, J.) conducted a contested hearing in August of 
2019.2  Based on the evidence at the hearing, by order dated September 20, 
2019, the court determined that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy 
due to the threat of abuse or neglect.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4002(1), (6) (2018).  The 
mother timely appealed.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2018); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).   
 
[¶4]  The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support 
the court’s finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child is in 
circumstances of jeopardy.  We review the court’s factual findings for clear 
error and will affirm its jeopardy determination “unless there is no competent 
record evidence that can rationally be understood to establish as more likely 
than not that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy to his or her health 
                                         
1  The temporary protection order against the mother lapsed in June of 2019.   
2  On the day of the hearing, the court entered an agreed-to jeopardy order as to the father; he 
does not appeal from that order.   
 
3 
and welfare.”  In re Nicholas S., 2016 ME 82, ¶ 9, 140 A.3d 1226 (alteration 
omitted) (quotation marks omitted). 
 
[¶5]  The court made the following findings of fact, which are supported 
by competent record evidence. 
 
The child’s father obtained a temporary protection from 
abuse order for the child against his mother [in May of 2019] . . . .  
The order was based on an altercation . . . involving the mother 
apparently pulling [the child] out of a car which placed [the child] 
in danger. . . .   
 
. . . . 
 
 
The mother has been charged with domestic violence three 
times [between] 2010 to 2018 . . . .  She is still on . . . probation . . . .  
She tested positive for THC and suboxone in late June 2019.  She 
also presented two pharmacies with altered prescriptions for 
suboxone which led to her termination from substance use 
counseling.  She continues to need such counseling, which is 
required by probation.  She also tested positive for cocaine this 
summer. . . .  She has a conviction for unlawful possession of drugs 
in 2016.  She agrees her substance use contributed to the 
domestic violence issues.   
 
. . . . 
 
 
[The mother has a] significant history of domestic violence 
against men in her life, often with her child present or nearby, [a] 
history of partially treated illegal substance use, [a] lack of 
understanding of all [the child’s] needs, and . . . uncertain housing. 
 
 
[¶6]  Contrary to the mother’s contentions, the court did not err in 
crediting the testimony of the child’s father and the mother’s former 
 
4 
substance abuse counselor over the mother’s.  See In re Child of Dawn B., 2019 
ME 93, ¶ 10, 210 A.3d 169 (“[T]he assessment of the weight and credibility of 
the evidence [is] for the trial court alone.”).  Taken together, the court’s 
supported factual findings are sufficient to support its determination that the 
child would be “subject to a threat of serious harm[] if [he were] returned to 
the custody of [the mother].”  In re Nicholas S., 2016 ME 82, ¶ 11, 140 A.3d 
1226 (quotation marks omitted); see 22 M.R.S. § 4002(6). 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stephen H. Shea, Esq., Fairfield & Associates, P.A., Portland, for appellant 
mother 
 
Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office 
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and 
Human Services 
 
Thaddeus V. Day, Esq., Law Offices of Thaddeus V. Day, PLLC, Cumberland 
Center, for appellee father 
 
 
Bridgton District Court docket number PC-2019-13 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY