Title: In re Emma S.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 8 
Docket: 
Han-17-347 
Submitted 
On Briefs: January 11, 2018 
Decided: 
January 23, 2018  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE EMMA S.  
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  The mother and the father of Emma S. appeal from a judgment of 
the District Court (Ellsworth, Roberts, J.) terminating their parental rights to 
the child pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) 
(2017).  Both parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 
court’s finding of parental unfitness and the court’s discretionary 
determination that termination is in the best interest of the child.  See id. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2).  The father additionally challenges whether the Department 
met its obligation pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4041 (2017) to provide 
reunification services.  We affirm the judgment. 
 
[¶2]  Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found by 
clear and convincing evidence that both parents (1) are unable to protect the 
child from jeopardy, and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a 
time that is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs and (2) are unable 
 
2 
to take responsibility for the child within a time that is reasonably calculated 
to meet the child’s needs.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii).  The court 
also determined that termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights 
is in the child’s best interest.  See id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).  We review the trial 
court’s factual findings that a parent is unfit and that termination of parental 
rights is in the child’s best interest for clear error and the ultimate decision to 
terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion.  Adoption of Isabelle T., 
2017 ME 220, ¶ 30, ---A.3d ---. 
 
[¶3]  The court based its determinations on the following findings of 
fact: 
[The child] is 4 years of age.  She has witnessed domestic 
violence and substance abuse by her parents.  She has a profound 
fear of abandonment.  She suffers from PTSD [post-traumatic 
stress disorder], is still processing earlier trauma and struggles 
with significant anxiety regarding separation from her caregivers.  
[The child’s] issues stem from the chaos of her life while in her 
parents’ care. 
 
[The father] has taken significant steps toward reunification 
with his daughter.  He has engaged in counseling for opiate 
addiction for over 18 months.  He has not counseled for alcohol 
abuse.  His [substance abuse] counselor testified that [the father] 
is not alcohol dependent.  [The father] is an intense individual.  
Alcohol brings out his aggressive tendencies.  He has completed 
24 of the 48 required [Batterer’s Intervention Program] groups 
and received a positive reference from [his BIP counselor]. . . .  He 
has not accepted responsibility for his prior assaultive behavior.  
The lack of specific alcohol counseling combined with this denial 
 
3 
indicate to the court that he continues to pose a risk of violence to 
his domestic partners and has not alleviated the jeopardy that 
violence poses to [the child]. 
 
 
. . . .  
 
[The child] must take antibiotics daily and be constantly 
monitored.  [The father] is employed as a fisherman.  He works 
hard to earn sufficient funds to maintain a home.  Unfortunately, 
his work hours are unpredictable and not within his control.  His 
employment caused him to miss visits with [the child] and 
counseling sessions with [his BIP counselor].  He cannot maintain 
a consistent routine at home.  His plans for [the child’s] care while 
he is working are not particularly structured.  [The child] needs 
routine and stability in her home.  She will suffer significant 
trauma if placed in an unstable living environment. 
 
This is a very old case, and [the child] needs permanency.  
The child has been in the custody of DHHS since August of 2015.  
Despite the length of time and the numerous opportunities, [the 
father] is not yet in a position to care for [the child]. 
 
 
. . . . 
 
[The mother] has struggled with opiate addiction for the 
last seven years.  She engaged in substance abuse counseling on 
multiple occasions.  The initial Jeopardy finding herein was based 
in large part on her substance abuse.  She has taken steps in 
support of her efforts to rehabilitate and reunify.  She began 
counseling at a treatment facility in the summer of 2016.  In early 
October of 2016 she left for Florida without notifying the 
Department.  She participated in an intensive substance abuse 
program in Florida, returning to Maine on January 4, 2017.  She 
did not communicate with the Department, or [the child] 
throughout this period.  Upon returning to Maine [the mother] 
relapsed. 
 
She 
entered 
another 
treatment 
facility 
on 
March 14, 2017, acknowledging that she had been using heroin 
and cocaine.  She is currently prescribed Methadone and is 
 
4 
participating in counseling.  [The mother] has been unable to 
provide care for [the child] for a period of 23 months due to her 
substance abuse.  The court finds that she has a chronic substance 
abuse problem.  [The mother’s] fragile sobriety places her child at 
risk if returned to her care. 
 
 
. . . . 
 
[The child’s] fear of abandonment was aggravated by [the 
mother’s] decision to leave Maine for Florida without notice.  [The 
child] will not be able to return to [the mother’s] custody within a 
reasonable period of time, considering [the child’s] age and her 
need for a permanent home. 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
Despite the passage of approximately 24 months, the 
parents have not made sufficient changes.  The court respects the 
Guardian ad litem’s opinion and places significant weight on it.  
The Guardian believes that termination of the parents’ parental 
rights is in the child’s best interest, and the court agrees with his 
assessment. 
 
 
[¶4]  Given these findings regarding the mother and the father and the 
court’s other specific findings of fact, all of which are supported by competent 
evidence in the record,1 the court did not err in its finding of the mother’s and 
                                         
1  Contrary to the father’s contention, there is ample evidence in the record that the father has a 
significant history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, and the court did not clearly err in 
finding that he is not engaged in specific alcohol counseling.  Additionally, the court’s finding 
regarding his denial of domestic violence is supported by competent evidence in the record.  
Furthermore, where the court finds multiple bases for unfitness, as it did here, the judgment will be 
affirmed if any one of the alternative bases is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  See In re 
M.B., 2013 ME 46, ¶ 37, 65 A.3d 1260. 
 
5 
the father’s parental unfitness.  See In re Logan M., 2017 ME 23, ¶ 3, 
155 A.3d 430.  
[¶5]  The father further contends that the court erred in finding him 
unfit to parent his child because the Department did not meet its burden 
under 22 M.R.S. § 4041 to provide reunification services.  Specifically, he 
argues that the Department did not provide referrals in a timely manner and 
did not provide him with adequate visitation opportunities, and the judgment 
should therefore be vacated.  However, the “Department’s compliance with its 
rehabilitation and reunification duties as outlined in section 4041 does not 
constitute a discrete element requiring proof in termination proceedings, nor 
does 
the 
failure 
of 
the 
Department 
to 
comply 
with 
section 
4041 preclude findings of parental unfitness.”  In re Doris G., 2006 ME 142, 
¶ 17, 912 A.2d 572; see 22 M.R.S. § 4041.  The court may consider the lack of 
reunification efforts, but is not required to address the extent of the 
Department’s reunification efforts in its finding that the father is unfit if 
competent evidence in the record supports the court’s finding, by clear and 
convincing evidence, of at least one ground of parental unfitness.  See In re 
Hannah S., 2016 ME 32, ¶¶ 12-13, 133 A.3d 590.  Here, because there was 
competent evidence to support the court’s finding of parental unfitness, the 
 
6 
court was not required to address the extent of the Department’s reunification 
efforts.  See id. 
[¶6]  The court did not err or abuse its discretion in its determination 
that termination of the mother’s and the father’s parental rights, with a 
permanency plan for adoption, is in the child’s best interest.  See 
In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rick Doyle, Esq., Next Step DV Project, Ellsworth, for appellant mother 
 
Dawn M. Corbett, Esq., Law Office of Dawn M. Corbett, PA, Ellsworth, 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 
 
 
Ellsworth District Court docket number PC-2015-42 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY