Title: In re Danika B.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 209 
Docket: 
And-17-151 
Submitted 
On Briefs: September 27, 2017 
Decided: 
October 24, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE DANIKA B. et al. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  The mother of Danika B., Victor B., and Daytona C. appeals from a 
judgment of the District Court (Lewiston, Dow, J.) terminating her parental 
rights to the children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), 
(b)(i)-(ii) (2016).  The mother argues that the court’s finding that the 
Department of Health and Human Services did not make reasonable efforts to 
“shape and monitor” counseling for her compels us to conclude that the 
termination of her parental rights was improper.  We affirm the judgment.  
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The court based its decision to terminate the mother’s parental 
rights on the following factual findings, which are supported by the record:  
[T]he Department has made reasonable efforts to 
rehabilitate and reunify the family, and has made reasonable 
efforts to identify and pursue an alternative permanency plan.  
These efforts include rehabilitation and reunification planning, 
family team meetings, safety assessments, random drug screening 
 
2 
for the mother, referral to domestic violence education and 
services for the mother, supervised visitation for the mother, ICPC 
study for kinship placement, mental health and parental 
assessment for the mother, medical and mental health care for the 
children, referral to case management for the mother, [and] foster 
care for the children.  While the Department referred the mother 
to mental health counseling, the Department failed to take 
reasonable steps to shape and monitor the quality of that 
counseling, and such failure makes the counseling fall short of 
qualifying as a reasonable effort by DHHS.  
 
. . . .  
 
 
. . . Child protection services has been involved with [the 
mother and] these children . . . over and over since 2003.  Despite 
repeated interventions, the chronic problems in the household are 
exposure to domestic violence, squalid and unsafe living 
conditions, housing instability, and inadequate supervision and 
care of children.  
 
. . . .  
 
 
The relationship with [the father] has, in fact, been violent, 
with both [parents] as perpetrators, and the children as 
witnesses.  [The mother] has not shown accountability for her 
violence or changed the belief system that underpins recurrent 
domestic violence.  The Court adopts [the evaluator’s] finding 
that, “[o]ne of the biggest obstacles for [the mother] is her lack of 
insight and recognition regarding the problems in her life and the 
role she plays in them.”  [The mother] has chosen to have contact 
with [the father] throughout the pendency of this case.  
 
. . . .  
 
 
[The mother] succeeded in attending and completing 
certain services.  In May of 2016, she successfully completed DBT 
group.  She attended a parenting class.  Since June of 2016, she has 
 
3 
engaged in counseling . . . and she attended the majority of 
scheduled case management sessions . . . .  These are good things. 
 
 
 
However, desirable results from these services remain 
elusive.  The Court notes, for example, that [the mother’s] 
completion of DBT class preceded by only a few weeks her 
emotional escalation to aggressiveness toward a visit supervisor 
at a supervised visit on May 31, 2016.  Police were called and 
visits were suspended for a time.  It was the kind of escalation that 
DBT is intended to prevent.    
 
 
As for counseling, the Court was gravely disappointed with 
the testimony of [the counselor] that she was not 100 percent 
sure she had seen [the evaluator’s] parental assessment of [the 
mother].  She certainly has not been using that assessment as a 
guide to focus the efforts in counseling.  [The counselor] identified 
the goals of her counseling of [the mother] to be addressing 
depression, PTSD, and reunification with the children.  Despite 
months of weekly counseling sessions, [the counselor] was not 
aware that [the mother] had been a perpetrator of domestic 
violence against [the father], not aware of the extent to which [the 
mother] has continued to see [the father], and not aware that [the 
mother] had been convicted of three counts of endangering the 
welfare of a child.  The trauma that [the mother and the 
counselor] seem to be processing together seems to be the 
difficult experience of having the children removed by DHHS 
rather than [the mother’s] reported history as a victim of abuse 
and neglect by her parents and abuse by her romantic partners.  
The Court finds that the counseling . . . , in terms of its effect on 
alleviating jeopardy, has been a missed opportunity thus far. 
 
. . . .  
 
 
As for case management, the goals were to find a primary 
care physician, arrange medication management, and obtain 
suitable housing for [the mother].  While the first two goals have 
been met, [the mother] has yet to obtain suitable housing.  At the 
time of trial, [the mother] had a room in the home of friends, 
 
4 
unsuitable for reunification with the children.  She was on the 
wait list for subsidized housing at different locations.  She was in 
the process of applying for Social Security Disability benefits 
which would improve her financial stability.  At certain times 
during the pendency of the case, [the mother] lived in her vehicle, 
in a motel with her brother, with another friend, with [the father] 
(in violation of court orders) and with [the children’s paternal 
grandfather].    
 
 
The Court adopts [the guardian ad litem’s] assessment of 
[the mother’s] fitness for parenting and her efforts to alleviate 
jeopardy: 
 
“[The mother] has tried her best to engage in the 
reunification process, which has been difficult given 
her challenging life with limited resources.  [The 
mother] wants to do well.  [The evaluator] noted in 
her 
parental 
assessment 
that 
numerous 
interventions have been attempted over the years 
with [the mother] with little result.  While [the 
mother] did not fully engage with the rehabilitation 
and reunification process in 2015, she has regularly 
attended the visits since February 2016, and has 
regularly engaged with a new case manager and 
therapist since June 2016.  [She] has yet to develop 
insight into how she contributed to the reasons [the 
Department] intervened, and what she can do 
differently. [ . . . ] [The mother] has shown some good 
parenting skills during the visits, but the overall 
impression is that she cannot safely parent and 
manage [the children], whether it is one or three 
children at a time, unless she has help.  Since June of 
2015, [she] has struggled with her relationship with 
[the father] and domestic violence, safe and stable 
housing, 
mental 
health 
treatment, 
medication 
management, and regularly communicating with [the 
Department].”  
 
 
5 
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds by clear and 
convincing evidence that [the mother] is unfit due to her inability 
to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for 
them in a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs.   
 
The Court turns now to the issue of the children’s best 
interest.  All of the findings above also go to best interest. 
 
The children’s lives in the care of [the mother] were chaotic.  
Their negative experiences in [the mother’s] care range from 
trauma (witnessing serious assaults between their parents), to 
neglect ([the mother] was convicted [of] three counts of 
endangering the welfare of a child).  The children all have special 
needs that require a good deal of attention from their custodians.  
They have all been making progress in their services.   
 
[The twins] have just turned five years old.  [The eldest 
daughter] is six.  The children have been in foster care since 
June 4, 2015.  According to the GAL report, the three children 
need stability, consistency, structure, and intensive supervision.  
They absolutely need permanency.   
 
The GAL believes that termination of the mother’s rights as 
to [the three children] is in the children’s best interest.  The 
evidence compels the Court to agree strongly. . . .  
 
(Citations omitted.)   
 
II.  DISCUSSION 
 
[¶3]  Although the mother argues that the judgment terminating her 
parental rights should be vacated because the court found that the 
Department failed to take reasonable steps to shape and monitor the quality 
 
6 
of her counseling, the record does not support that interpretation of the 
court’s findings.  
[¶4]  Here, the court noted only that the counselor had chosen to 
address issues that, ultimately, would not assist the mother in alleviating 
jeopardy.  Although the court found that the Department failed to take 
reasonable steps to shape and monitor the mother’s counseling, the court 
specifically found that the Department did make reasonable efforts to reunify, 
including rehabilitation and reunification planning, family team meetings, 
referral to domestic violence education and services, supervised visitation, an 
ICPC study for kinship placement, mental health assessment and treatment, 
and referral to case management services.  See In re Daniel H., 2017 ME 89, 
¶ 16, 160 A.3d 1182.  Even if the Department had not made reasonable efforts 
to reunify, which is not the case here, that failure alone does not preclude a 
termination of parental rights.  See In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 28, 
854 A.2d 195.  There is competent evidence in the record to support the 
court’s findings of unfitness and that termination is in the children’s best 
interests.  
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nathaniel Seth Levy, Esq., Brunswick, for appellant mother 
 
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 
 
 
Lewiston District Court docket number PC-2015-37 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY