Title: In re Children of Tasha R.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 64 
Docket: 
Pen-17-520 
Submitted 
    On Briefs: April 25, 2018 
Decided: 
May 8, 2018 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILDREN OF TASHA R. 
 
PER CURIAM 
 
[¶1]  Tasha R. appeals from a judgment of the District Court 
(Bangor, Jordan, J.) terminating her parental rights to two of her children 
pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv) (2017).  
Contrary to the mother’s contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in 
proceeding with the termination hearing notwithstanding her request to 
replace her court-appointed counsel.  The mother does not challenge the court’s 
findings by clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness and that 
termination is in the children’s best interests.  See In re Zarianna C., 2018 ME 11, 
¶ 2, 177 A.3d 1270; In re Alexavier G., 2017 ME 227, ¶ 1 & n.1, 174 A.3d 891 
(stating that when the trial court found three bases for parental unfitness, a 
single undisputed basis “constitutes a waiver of this issue on appeal” and “alone 
is sufficient to support the court’s termination of her parental rights”).  
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 
 
2 
 
[¶2]  The mother failed to appear for the September 26, 2017, hearing on 
the Department of Health and Human Services’ petition to terminate her 
parental rights.  Her court-appointed counsel was present and represented her 
interests.  Earlier, on September 15, acting pro se, the mother filed two 
handwritten letters with the court raising numerous issues.  Relevant to the 
sole issue she raises on appeal, in one of the letters the mother alleged that her 
attorney had failed to adequately communicate with and otherwise represent 
her, and she named another attorney that she wished to have appointed to her 
case.1  Upon finding that “I don’t take anything from [the letters] . . . [t]hey’re 
allegations . . . [and the mother] is not here today,” and without objection from 
any party, the court proceeded with the evidentiary hearing, in which the State, 
the mother’s counsel, and the guardian ad litem participated. 
 
[¶3]  Although the mother has a due process right to appointed counsel 
in this child protection proceeding, In re T.B., 2013 ME 49, ¶ 14, 65 A.3d 1282, 
“the right to counsel does not include unfettered freedom to change attorneys,” 
State v. Goodno, 511 A.2d 456, 457 (Me. 1986).  We review the trial court’s 
decision on a motion to change counsel for an abuse of discretion.  In re J.R. Jr., 
                                         
1  In addition to representing the absent mother at the hearing, counsel filed a notice of appeal and 
appellant’s brief on her behalf.  There is no indication in the record that the prospective substitute 
attorney named in the mother’s letter was even aware of her request. 
 
3 
2013 ME 58, ¶ 19, 69 A.3d 406; see In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182, ¶ 19, 
169 A.3d 914 (“Although we recognize the trial court’s goal of protecting the 
parents’ fundamental right to effective assistance of counsel, the court must be 
careful, in protecting that right, not to ignore the simultaneous interest of the 
State in promoting ‘the early establishment of permanent plans for the children, 
22 M.R.S. § 4003(4) [2017].’” (citation omitted)).  On these facts we find no 
abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to proceed with the termination 
hearing. 
 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Randy G. Day, Esq., Garland, 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 
 
 
Bangor District Court docket numbers PC-2016-74, 75 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY