Title: In re Dante C.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 6 
Docket: 
Ken-17-299 
Submitted 
On Briefs: January 11, 2018  
Decided: 
January 23, 2018 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE DANTE C. et al. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  The mother of Dante C. and Delia-Marie C. appeals from a 
judgment of the District Court (Waterville, Stanfill, J.) terminating her parental 
rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2) (2017).  After 
reviewing the evidence, we affirm. 
[¶2]  The court held a hearing on the Department’s petition for the 
termination of the mother’s parental rights on June 14, 2017.  Despite the fact 
that she had been served with the petition to terminate her parental rights 
and received notice of the hearing, the mother failed to appear at the 
proceeding.   
[¶3]  The evidence presented at the termination hearing demonstrated 
that the mother had not maintained meaningful contact or had any visitation 
with the children since November 2016.  The mother had shown a significant 
lack of engagement with the reunification process throughout the case.  
 
2 
Following the January 2016 jeopardy order, the reunification plan required 
that the mother address issues related to housing for the children, domestic 
violence and her ability to protect the children from violence, and her 
substance abuse and mental health issues.  There was no evidence that the 
mother engaged in any services to address those issues or that she secured 
stable or appropriate housing for the children.   
[¶4]  After considering the testimony presented at the hearing and 
reviewing the entirety of the record, the court found by clear and convincing 
evidence that (1) the children have been abandoned by the mother; (2) the 
mother is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and these 
circumstances are unlikely to change within a time calculated to meet the 
children’s needs; (3) the mother is unwilling or unable to take responsibility 
for the children within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet their 
needs; (4) the mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and 
reunify with the children; and (5) termination of the mother’s parental rights 
is in the best interests of the children.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2).  The 
court entered its order terminating parental rights as to the mother on 
 
3 
June 23, 2017.  The mother timely appealed the order pursuant to 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4006 (2017) and M.R. App. P. 2(b)(3) (Tower 2016).1   
 
[¶5]  On August 25, 2017, pursuant to the process outlined in In re M.C., 
2014 ME 128, ¶¶ 6-7, 104 A.3d 139, counsel for the mother filed an appellate 
brief containing only a statement of facts and procedural history, and a 
statement that counsel believed that there are no arguable issues of merit for 
an appeal.  In an order dated August 31, 2017, we granted the mother an 
enlargement of time to file a supplemental brief.  The mother did not file a 
supplemental brief,2 and we granted the Department’s motion requesting that 
we consider the appeal without briefing from the Department.   
 
[¶6]  The record supports the court’s findings of parental unfitness as to 
the mother.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(iv).  Furthermore, there was 
sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s findings and 
discretionary determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights 
                                         
1  This appeal was commenced before September 1, 2017, and therefore the restyled Maine 
Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply.  See M.R. App. P. 1. 
2  Counsel for the mother made numerous attempts to contact the mother and to personally 
serve the order granting the motion to permit supplemental briefing.  The only communication 
counsel received was a Facebook message, from an account believed to be the mother’s, stating: “I 
am letting you know I am not going to file an appeal.  The kids are happy and doing great so I’m 
going to let it be.”  Counsel made several attempts to contact the mother to determine whether this 
statement was a stipulation to the dismissal of the appeal, but counsel was unable to make contact.  
Because the Facebook message does not constitute an unambiguous stipulation to the dismissal of 
the mother’s appeal, we consider the appeal. 
 
4 
was in the children’s best interests.  See In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66, ¶ 33, 159 
A.3d 345; see also 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a). 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Elyse M. Apantaku, Esq., Schneider & Brewer, Waterville, for appellant mother 
 
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief 
 
 
Waterville District Court docket number PC-2015-33 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY