Title: In re Adoption of Ivan M.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2019 ME 22 
Docket: 
Wal-18-314 
Submitted 
On Briefs: January 17, 2019 
Decided: 
February 12, 2019 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
ADOPTION OF IVAN M. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  The father and mother of I.M. appeal from a judgment entered by 
the Waldo County Probate Court (Longley, J.) terminating their parental rights 
in anticipation of an adoption pursuant to 18-A M.R.S. § 9-204(a)-(b) (2017)1 
and 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(2), (B)(2)(a), and (B)(2)(b)(ii) (2017).  Both 
parents contend that there was insufficient evidence to support the Probate 
Court’s findings that they are parentally unfit and that termination of their 
parental rights is in the best interest of the child.  Additionally, the father 
asserts that the Probate Court abused its discretion by failing to clearly rule 
on an objection raised during the hearing on the petition for termination of 
parental rights.  Discerning no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm the 
judgment. 
                                         
1  The Maine Probate Code, codified in Title 18-A, will be revised and recodified in Title 18-C 
effective July 1, 2019.  See P.L. 2017, ch. 402.  
 
 
2 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The present appeal arises from petitions to terminate the mother’s 
and father’s parental rights and a petition for adoption brought by the 
maternal grandparents of the child in the Waldo County Probate Court.  The 
maternal grandparents, who are the child’s limited co-guardians, sought to 
terminate the parental rights of the child’s mother and father in order to 
adopt the child.  A two-day hearing was held on the maternal grandparents’ 
petitions on May 8 and 21, 2017.  The following facts derive from the Probate 
Court’s judgment terminating the mother and father’s parental rights, and are 
supported by competent record evidence admitted over the course of a 
two-day hearing.   
[¶3]  In its order terminating parental rights, the Probate Court made 
the following factual findings of parental unfitness with regard to the father: 
In addition to repeated domestic violence aimed at the mother, 
[the father] has had a long and ongoing history with anger issues 
and emotional instability. . . .  Though he occasionally can present 
as . . . calm and polite, he has often shown himself to be very easily 
provoked into a rage, rant and/or violence.   
 
 
. . . Starting 2 years ago, he has ignored his child and his 
visitation opportunities with [the child].  Instead, [the father] has 
made excuses.  Regardless of repeated and ongoing visit 
opportunities, what visits he has sought, he often has left early or 
remained in the car outside the child’s home.  He also has 
canceled multiple visits.  He has added that this child “can 
 
 
3 
overwhelm” him, that the [maternal grandparents’] “control” has 
him feeling “attacked” by the [maternal grandparents], adding “I 
don’t like to be around them.”  And he was not able to remember 
the last time he was with his child.  In short, [the father] has had a 
visitation routine with his child . . . that has gone from the 
infrequent and sporadic to the non-existent.  
 
 
Now living in the home of a friend, he has decided to ignore 
his child’s life-long home and attachments along with [the child’s] 
special needs and have [the child] in his own care.  Specifically, 
[the father] has stated, “if I had this child, I would not let the 
guardians in [the child’s] life.”  
 
In short, [the father] . . . has continued to lack the ability or 
willingness to take responsibility for this child in a time-frame 
reasonably calculated to meet this . . . child’s now immediate 
needs and wishes for permanency. 
 
[¶4]  In its decision terminating parental rights, the Probate Court made 
the following factual findings of parental unfitness with regard to the mother: 
[The mother] has admitted that she has no bond with the child in 
this court’s proceedings.  In her words, she “never had one.”  She 
also has admitted that the child is doing very well in the [maternal 
grandparents’] primary care.  She has added that, with them, [the 
child] has a routine and a strong bond. . . .  [S]he has chosen to 
reduce her visits to a mere 2-3 family gatherings this year . . . .  
 
. . . . 
 
 
. . . Beyond a few cards and gifts, [the mother] has failed to 
support this child financially.  
 
. . . . 
 
 
. . . In her request [to] have this child in her care, she 
casually, if not summarily . . . has dismissed this child’s lifelong 
 
 
4 
home with and primary attachment to his primary caregivers.  
She also has ignored [the child’s] special needs for routine and 
predictability.  
 
In short, [the mother] has continued to lack the ability or 
willingness to take responsibility for this child in a time-frame 
reasonably calculated to meet this . . . child’s now immediate 
needs and wishes for permanency. 
 
[¶5]  Based on its findings, the Probate Court came to the following 
conclusion: 
Carefully having considered the needs of this child, the child’s age 
and relationship with the [mother and father] and with the 
[maternal grandparents], and the amount of time spent with each 
of the parties and the child’s proven ability to integrate into the 
home of the [maternal grandparents], termination is in the best 
interest of the child. 
 
 
In sum, and based on the most credible evidence presented 
in these proceedings, the [maternal grandparents have] clearly 
and convincingly proven that the [mother and father] have been 
unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child in a time 
frame reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs. 
 
[¶6]  The mother and father timely appealed the Probate Court’s 
judgment.  See 18-A M.R.S. § 9-309 (2017); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1). 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A. 
Evidentiary Challenge 
[¶7]  The father contends that the Probate Court erred by not ruling 
clearly on an objection to the maternal grandmother’s use of prepared notes 
 
 
5 
while she was providing testimony to the court.  Contrary to the father’s 
argument, the record demonstrates that, when an objection was raised to the 
maternal grandmother reading from her notes, the Probate Court either 
required the attorney to use the proper method of refreshing a witness’s 
recollection or sustained the objection.  The father does not demonstrate, and 
the record does not reveal, any error in the Probate Court’s handling of the 
objections that were raised and the manner of the maternal grandmother’s 
testimony.  See State v. Hamel, 2007 ME 18, ¶¶ 3-4, 913 A.2d 1287; State v. 
Liberty, 498 A.2d 257, 259 (Me. 1985).  Therefore, the father is not entitled to 
any relief on this evidentiary challenge. 
B. 
Sufficiency of the Evidence 
 
[¶8]  The mother and father contend that the evidence is insufficient to 
establish parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence.2   
Our review of parental rights termination cases is limited, and we 
will affirm a judgment on appeal if any evidence in the record can 
rationally be read to establish as highly probable the court’s 
factual conclusion that [the parents are] unwilling or unable to 
take responsibility for the child within a time to meet [the child’s] 
needs. 
 
                                         
2  The mother also challenges the Probate Court’s finding that termination of her parental rights 
is in the best interest of the child.  Contrary to the mother’s contentions, there is a wealth of 
evidence in the record to support the Probate Court’s determination that termination of her 
parental rights is in the best interest of the child.   
 
 
6 
In re Kenneth H., 1997 ME 48, ¶ 5, 690 A.2d 984 (alterations omitted) 
(quotation marks omitted).  Despite the parents’ assertions, there is 
competent evidence in the record to establish as highly probable that both 
parents are unable to take responsibility for the child within a time 
reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.  See Adoption of Shayleigh S., 
2018 ME 165, ¶ 16, --- A.3d ---.  Consequently, the court did not err in its 
findings of parental unfitness. 
 
[¶9]  In conclusion, neither the parents nor the record demonstrates 
any error or abuse of discretion, and we therefore affirm the judgment 
terminating the mother’s and father’s parental rights. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Natasha C. Irving, Esq., Waldoboro, for appellant father 
 
Christina B. Perkins, Esq., Ellsworth, for appellant mother 
 
Joseph W. Baiungo, Esq., Belfast, for appellees maternal grandparents 
 
 
Waldo County Probate Court docket number A-2017-1501-2 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY