Title: In re Child of Adam E.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 157 
Docket: 
Cum-18-284 
 
Submitted 
On Briefs: November 28, 2018 
Decided: 
December 6, 2018 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF ADAM E. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Adam E. appeals from a judgment of the District Court 
(Portland, Powers, J.) terminating his parental rights to his child pursuant to 
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2017).1  The father 
contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s findings by 
clear and convincing evidence that (1) he is unable to protect the child from 
jeopardy or to take responsibility for him within a time reasonably calculated 
to meet the child’s needs, and (2) termination is in the child’s best interest.  
See id.  We affirm the judgment. 
[¶2]  The court based its determinations on the following findings of fact, 
all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record: 
[The father] loves his son but has not cared for him for years.  The 
father has had chronic homelessness and mental health issues.  He 
has not had a stable house for his son and lived outside as recently 
                                         
1  The mother consented to a termination of her parental rights and is not a party to this appeal. 
 
2 
as the winter of 2017-18.  [The father] has had a chaotic lifestyle 
himself and only recently found an apartment.  He continues to live 
with a woman with a concerning child protection history involving 
termination of her parental rights. 
 
The child’s father only had supervised visits which were suspended 
twice for inconsistent attendance.  Recently he has seen [the child] 
three hours on Friday afternoons, and again there have been 
inconsistent visits.  He is a hard worker and seems to have 
prioritized work over child issues.  He has not learned about his 
son’s services or school issues.  He did not ask DHHS to check out 
his new apartment for possible trial placement.  [The father] has 
not had unsupervised contact.  His statement that he can meet this 
child’s many needs now is unrealistic. 
 
This child has considerable needs to address his anxiety and 
behavioral issues and will require services for a long time.  [The 
father] has not participated in services and has not shown an 
understanding of these issues.  He wants to be a parent but has not 
shown he has the ability to do so throughout this case, despite his 
stated desire to do so now. 
 
. . . .  
 
This child has many needs despite receiving extensive services to 
address his mental health and behavioral issues.  He has been 
supported in that endeavor by the . . . foster family, which is able to 
understand and meet his needs.  It has proven to be an excellent 
home.  He has improved over about two years as part of this family 
while still needing ongoing support for years.  His father has not 
shown an ability to understood these issues or meet such needs. 
 
Termination will provide the permanence, stability, and 
consistency that this boy needs.  Uncertainty over the occurrence 
of parental visits will end. . . . He will not face removal from his 
family, as has occurred twice before with his biological parents.  
There will be no more court reviews after adoption and his services 
 
3 
will still continue . . . .  All of this should help [the child] continue to 
improve his mental health, social, and behavioral issues. 
 
This is clearly best for [the] young [child], even though it may take 
away his father’s contact.  That itself has been inconsistent and a 
source of stress. 
 
 
[¶3]  Reviewing the factual findings supporting the court’s unfitness and 
best interest determinations for clear error, and further reviewing the court’s 
ultimate conclusion that termination is in the child’s best interest for an abuse 
of discretion, we determine that the court’s findings and conclusions are 
supported by this record.  See In re Child of Portia L., 2018 ME 51, ¶ 2, 
183 A.3d 747; see also Sullivan v. George, 2018 ME 115, ¶ 13, 191 A.3d 1168 
(“A fact-finding is clearly erroneous only if there is no competent evidence in 
the record to support it.” (quotation marks omitted)).  Accordingly, we affirm 
the judgment. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jason A. MacLean, Esq., Bridgton, for appellant father 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of 
the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human 
Services 
 
Portland District Court docket number PC-2016-54 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY