Title: In re Child of Joshua S.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 132  
Docket: 
And-18-165 
Submitted 
    On Briefs: September 26, 2018 
Decided: 
October 4, 2018 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF JOSHUA S.  
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Joshua S. appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court 
(Lewiston, Beliveau, J.) terminating his parental rights to his child pursuant to 
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2017).  The father challenges the 
court’s determination that termination of his parental rights is in the best 
interest of his child rather than a permanency guardianship with the child’s 
maternal grandmother.1  We affirm the judgment.   
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  This case began on January 23, 2017, when both of the child’s 
parents were arrested after law enforcement, working with the mother’s 
probation officer, entered the family residence and seized heroin, cocaine, 
marijuana, and  various items of drug paraphernalia.  At the time of their arrest, 
                                         
1  The mother consented to the termination of her parental rights on March 12, 2018, and she is 
therefore not a party to his appeal.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(1) (2017).  
 
2 
the police observed needles, cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl out in the open.  The 
child—then six years old—was present during the arrest.   
[¶3]  As a result of the arrests, on February 2, 2017, the Department of 
Health and Human Services filed a petition for a child protection order, alleging 
that both parents abused drugs, the father was trafficking scheduled drugs out 
of the home, and that the child was exposed to unsafe conditions, including 
access to scheduled drugs and domestic violence between the mother and 
father.  The court (Dow, J.) granted a preliminary protection order that day, 
placing the child in the custody of the Department.   
[¶4]  On April 24, 2017, the District Court (Oram, J.) entered a jeopardy 
order by agreement, finding that the parents had untreated substance abuse 
and mental health issues and exposed the child to an unsafe living environment 
and unsafe individuals.  By judicial review order dated September 14, 2017, the 
court (Dow, J.) ordered the Department to cease reunification efforts with the 
father because continuing such efforts would be “inconsistent with the 
permanency plan for the child.”  On January 3, 2018, the Department petitioned 
the District Court to terminate the parental rights of both parents.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2) (2017).   
 
3 
[¶5]  After a one-day testimonial hearing, by judgment dated 
April 11, 2018, the court (Beliveau, J.) terminated the father’s parental rights, 
having found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the father was “unable 
to take responsibility for his child and is unable to protect [the child] from 
jeopardy within a reasonable time to meet [the child’s] needs,” and the 
“circumstances clearly indicate that there will be no change within a time 
reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs” and (2) termination was in the 
best interest of the child.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii).  The court 
based its decision on the following findings, which are supported by competent 
record evidence.   
The child [] has been in foster care since February 2, 2017.  
[The child] is now 7 years of age.  The father is still incarcerated 
and his expected release date is March 2020.  He has been 
incarcerated since January of 2017.  He was expected to participate 
in substance abuse and mental health counseling while 
incarcerated.  He attended IOP [Intensive Outpatient Program] 
while in jail but did not participate in follow up treatment. . . .  Prior 
to his incarceration he had been abusing illegal drugs since age 25 
years.  This continued for at least 5 years prior to his incarceration. 
. . .  During those years, he attended the local Grace St. IOP program 
but still relapsed.  He never attended any counseling or treatment 
programs after completing the IOP program. . . .  According to the 
Father’s testimony, his longest period of sobriety was 7 months 
during the 4 to 5 years prior to his incarceration.  He has waited till 
just recently to attend a parenting class in jail.    
 
. . . .  
 
 
4 
The [Department] caseworker . . . testified the Father was 
given DHHS contact information but never called to ask how his 
child was doing.  In addition, [the Department caseworker] said 
that the Father upon release would have to undergo mental health 
and substance abuse counseling and prove he can be sober before 
caring for his child.  This [c]ourt finds that it would be a long period 
of time for this to happen.  His history of unsuccessful treatment 
and sobriety are negatives in relation to the time it would take for 
him to be successful.    
 
. . . . 
 
This [c]ourt found and concluded in its Jeopardy Order that 
[the child] was in “circumstances of jeopardy to [the child’s] health 
and welfare as evidenced by the threat of serious harm and the 
threat of neglect.”  [The Father] continues to have serious 
untreated substance abuse, mental health issues as well as a 
history of domestic violence.  In addition, the parents exposed the 
child to an unsafe living environment and unsafe individuals who 
frequented their home.   
 
. . . .  
 
[T]he child is doing very well in [the] placement with [the 
child’s] grandmother.  The GAL has concluded that termination of 
parental rights is best for [the child] and not a Permanency 
Guardianship.  Adoption with [the] Grandmother is best for the 
child.   
    
. . . .  
 
The Father has no plans for housing upon his release since 
his release will not be until March 2020.  He agrees that after his 
release he would not be in a position to take immediate custody of 
his child.    
 
[T]his [c]ourt finds based on the evidence that the Father’s 
road to reunification is a long way off.  The child cannot wait 
 
5 
another year or two for [the] Father to reunify and be rehabilitated.  
His history of mental health and above all substance abuse dictates 
that the [c]hild is in need of permanency now and not two to three 
years from now.  The plan for permanency is termination of the 
Father’s parental rights which is the most reasonable for the child 
and in [the child’s] best interests.   
 
. . . .  
 
The child is in need of permanency.  [The child] cannot wait 
for [the] Father to rehabilitate so as to pursue reunification within 
a reasonable time.   
 
II.  DISCUSSION 
 
[¶6]  “We review the trial court’s factual finding that . . . termination of 
parental rights is in the child’s best interest for clear error and the ultimate 
decision to terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion.”  In re Child of 
Amber L., 2018 ME 91, ¶ 3, 188 A.3d 876 (quotation marks omitted).  Based 
upon the above facts, all of which have evidentiary support in the record, the 
court did not err in finding that the father is unfit and that termination of his 
parental rights is in the best interest of the child.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii); In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 
854 A.2d 195.    
 
[¶7]  The trial court found that the father’s incarceration, admitted 
history of substance abuse, untreated mental health issues, and history of 
domestic violence dictate that the child needs permanency now, not years from 
 
6 
now.  The child has been in foster care since January 2017, and the child’s father 
will be released from prison no sooner than March 2020.  The child cannot wait 
for three years, at minimum, to reunify with the father.  See In re B.P., 
2015 ME 139, ¶ 19, 126 A.3d 713.   
 
[¶8]  The father also argues that the court should have granted 
permanency guardianship to the child’s grandmother in lieu of terminating his 
parental rights.  The court’s determination that adoption, rather than a 
permanency guardianship, was in the child’s best interest is supported by the 
guardian ad litem’s testimony to that effect.  Specifically, the guardian ad litem 
testified that permanency guardianships are better suited for children older 
than this child and where the parents do not have extensive histories of 
substance abuse.  In light of this testimony, the court did not abuse its discretion 
in concluding that termination of the father’s parental rights and “[a]doption 
with [the] [g]randmother is best for the child.”   
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
 
 
Richard Charest, Esq., Lewiston, for appellant Father 
 
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office 
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human 
Services 
 
 
Lewiston District Court docket number PC-2017-008 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY