Title: In re Dominyk T.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2017 ME 222 
Docket: 
Han-17-329 
Submitted 
On Briefs: November 29, 2017 
Decided: 
December 7, 2017 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE DOMINYK T. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  The parents of Dominyk T. appeal from a judgment of the District 
Court (Ellsworth, Roberts, J.) terminating their parental rights to the child.  
The mother argues, and the father joins in her argument, that the Department 
of Health and Human Services failed to satisfy its obligation to provide 
necessary services to the mother and that the record cannot support the 
finding of parental unfitness or the determination that the termination of her 
parental rights is in Dominyk’s best interest.  The father also contends that, 
although he is unable to care for the child, the mother and he should both 
retain their parental rights.  We affirm the judgment. 
[¶2]  When the Department petitioned for a child protection order in 
February 2015, the child had already been residing apart from both parents 
with family members as part of an agreed upon safety plan.  The child has a 
genetic disorder that causes rapid growth in the first years of life and can 
 
2 
result in physical and behavioral challenges.  The Department alleged in its 
petition that the father was unable to maintain sobriety and that the mother 
could not maintain a stable home and safely care for the child. 
[¶3]  Upon the parties’ agreement, the court found in March 2015 that 
the child was in jeopardy with the mother due to the involuntary termination 
of her parental rights to two other children in 2005, her inability to keep 
Dominyk safe or meet his medical needs, her inability to maintain appropriate 
housing, and her repeated choice of unsafe partners.  See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4002(6), 
4035(2) (2016).  The father conceded that, due to his struggles with alcohol 
abuse, he was unable to care for Dominyk. 
[¶4]  The Department first filed a petition to terminate the parents’ 
parental rights in February 2016.  The court held a trial on that petition in 
November and December 2016 and was not persuaded that the Department 
had established the mother’s unfitness.  On that basis, the court denied the 
petition, and the Department then transitioned the child into the mother’s 
care. 
[¶5]  After the Department received new evidence of injuries to 
Dominyk, it filed another petition to terminate the parents’ parental rights on 
April 11, 2017.  The court held a trial on that petition and on July 11, 2017, 
 
3 
entered a judgment granting the petition to terminate the parents’ parental 
rights after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, the following facts, all of 
which are supported by competent evidence in the record.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2) (2016); In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, ¶ 29, 55 A.3d 463.   
[The mother] is very willing to take responsibility for Dominyk 
and to protect him from jeopardy.  She is simply unable to care for 
him consistently.  [The mother] worked extremely hard to 
alleviate the issues that brought him into care.  She engaged in 
counseling . . . for close to 2 years.  [The counselor] remains 
supportive of [the mother] indicating that she is a competent 
parent committed to her child and able to set appropriate limits 
for him.  At hearing, [the mother] articulated the parenting 
knowledge that she has acquired.  She can describe Dominyk’s 
needs and the parenting skills that she would utilize to deal with 
him.  [Her] parenting progress is contradicted by the observations 
of the in-home care providers.  She cannot consistently apply the 
parenting skills that she has acquired.   
 
 
Dominyk was transitioned into [the mother’s] care on 
December 30, 2016, following the court’s denial of the 
Department’s first termination petition.  [The mother] received 
HCT [home and community treatment] services . . . following 
Dominyk’s placement in her home.  [The HCT worker] noted that 
Dominyk exhibited heightened aggression following his return.  
She observed that [the mother] has a low stress threshold while 
Dominyk is quick to agitate.  This resulted in clashes between the 
two.  [The mother] would become agitated with Dominyk, he 
would respond with aggression and the HCT worker would 
intervene to calm the situation.  Unfortunately, [the mother] 
admitted that she couldn’t maintain the calm environment.  [The 
mother]’s partner confirmed that he and [the mother] were 
becoming irritable before March 30th.  They weren’t calm.  
Dominyk was hard to handle.  [The mother’s fiancé] felt that they 
really needed time away from Dominyk.   
 
4 
 
 
[The HCT worker] and . . . Dominyk’s school nurse noted 
that [physiological hygiene issues were] a significant concern 
during his placement with [the mother]. . . .  [The HCT worker] 
addressed her concerns with [the mother].  [The mother] could 
acknowledge the issue and seek guidance from [the HCT worker].  
Unfortunately, [the mother] was unable to adequately assist 
Dominyk. . . .   
 
 
Dominyk needs physical activity in his daily routine.  [The 
HCT worker] provided [the mother] with a sheet of physical 
activities designed to assist Dominyk.  While she acknowledged 
the importance of physical activities for Dominyk [the mother] 
failed to prompt him to engage in the activities.  [The mother] 
reported that Dominyk was unable to complete specific 
developmentally targeted tasks.   
 
 
The trial placement ended on March 30, 2017.  The 
Department removed Dominyk from his mother’s care following 
reports from [the HCT worker] and [the school nurse] of injuries 
that they had observed on him.  The most concerning injuries 
were a bruise on his wrist and a black eye.  [The mother] and her 
partner . . . have given inconsistent explanations for these injuries.  
Dominyk’s explanations have also been inconsistent.  More 
troubling to the court is [the mother]’s assertion that she was not 
aware of his black eye.  Dominyk’s injury was clearly visible to his 
school nurse and is clearly visible on photographs taken after her 
report.  At a minimum [the mother] failed to care for a concerning 
injury.   
 
 
[The mother] is simply unable to take responsibility for 
Dominyk within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs.  
[The mother] is unable to protect him from jeopardy within a time 
reasonably calculated to meet his needs.  While she is able to 
understand appropriate parenting techniques she is consistently 
unable to apply them.  [The foster mother] has provided foster 
care for Dominyk for over 2 years.  Dominyk was returned to her 
care after March 30, 2017.  She noted that he regressed physically 
 
5 
and emotionally while with [the mother].  He was able to 
complete simple physical tasks while in the [foster] home that he 
had been unable to accomplish with his mother.  He was able to 
regain his toilet training in her care as well.   
 
 
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DHHS 
offered [the mother] and [the father] appropriate services and 
referred them to providers.  [The father] was simply unwilling or 
unable to engage or make changes.  [The mother] was unable to 
make necessary changes.  This court finds that there is nothing 
more that DHHS could have done to assist [the mother] or [the 
father] in this case. 
 
 
. . . . 
 
 
[The mother] has worked exceptionally hard to acquire the 
parenting skills needed for Dominyk’s care.  The difficulty for [the 
mother] is one of timing.  Dominyk cannot continue to wait for his 
[mother] to do all the things necessary to set up a stable, 
consistent and safe life. . . . He needs a permanent home now and 
cannot wait any longer for [the mother] to get her life in order.  
This is a particularly troubling case because it is clear to this court 
that [the mother] loves Dominyk dearly.  Despite that love, [the 
mother] is unable to take full responsibility for Dominyk at this 
time.  The court does not believe that she will be able to take 
responsibility for him within a time reasonably calculated to meet 
his needs. 
 
 
. . . . 
 
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that even 
though [the mother] may be willing, she is unable to protect 
Dominyk from Jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to 
change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet his 
needs.  This court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that 
even though [the mother] may be willing, she is unable to take 
responsibility for Dominyk within a time which is reasonably 
calculated to meet his needs. 
 
6 
 
 
[¶6]  The mother contends on appeal that the judgment terminating her 
parental rights must be vacated because the Department failed to satisfy its 
rehabilitation and reunification obligations, particularly by failing to 
investigate the cause of Dominyk’s bruises more thoroughly.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4041 (2016).  The court found that the Department made significant efforts 
to assist the mother and that she received multiple and appropriate services.  
The court also found that, during Dominyk’s three-month trial placement—
the first time he had resided full-time with his mother in three or more 
years—the mother was unable to implement learned parenting skills, 
resulting in significant physical and behavioral problems for Dominyk; she 
could not respond effectively when Dominyk became agitated; she could not 
control her own emotional reactions to his behavior; and Dominyk suffered 
injuries that, at a minimum, the mother did not treat while Dominyk was in 
her care. 
 
[¶7]  Based on the facts that the court found, all of which have 
evidentiary support, the court did not err in finding that the mother was 
unable to protect Dominyk from jeopardy or take responsibility for him 
within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet his needs, see 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii); In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 854 A.2d 195, 
 
7 
and it did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that the termination of 
her parental rights was in Dominyk’s best interest, see 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(a); In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, ¶ 29, 55 A.3d 463; In re Thomas 
H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297.  Nor did the court err or abuse its 
discretion in terminating the parental rights of the father.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv); In re Daniel H., 2017 ME 89, ¶ 17, 160 A.3d 
1182. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dawn M. Corbett, Esq., Law Office of Dawn M. Corbett, PA, Ellsworth, for 
appellant mother 
 
Mary Kellett Gray, Esq., Brooklin, for appellant father 
 
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 
 
 
Ellsworth District Court docket number PC-2015-09 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY