Title: In re Children of Benjamin D.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2018 ME 136 
Docket: 
Ken-18-109 
Submitted 
On Briefs: September 26, 2018 
Decided: 
October 4, 2018 
 
Panel: 
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILDREN OF BENJAMIN D. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Benjamin D. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Augusta, 
Fowle, J.) terminating his parental rights to his two children.1  He challenges the 
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s finding of parental unfitness 
and the court’s discretionary determination that termination is in the best 
interests of the children.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2017).  Because the 
evidence supports the court’s findings and discretionary determinations, we 
affirm the judgment. 
[¶2]  Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found by clear 
and convincing evidence that the father (1) is unable to protect the children 
from jeopardy, and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time 
                                         
1  On June 27, 2017, the District Court (Augusta, Fowle, J.) entered a judgment terminating the 
mother’s parental rights after the mother consented in writing to the termination of her rights.  
See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), B(1) (2017).  The mother does not appeal from that judgment. 
 
2 
that is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs and (2) is unwilling 
and unable to take responsibility for the children within a time that is 
reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) (2017).  The court also found that termination of the 
father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.  See 22 M.R.S. 
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).   
[¶3]  We review factual findings supporting the unfitness determination 
for clear error and apply the same standard to the factual findings supporting 
the best interest determination.  See In re Child of James R., 2018 ME 50, 
¶¶ 11, 14, 182 A.3d 1252.  We review the court’s ultimate conclusion that 
termination is in the children’s best interest for an abuse of discretion.  See 
In re Anastasia M., 2017 ME 213, ¶ 2, 172 A.3d 922.   
[¶4]  The court based its determinations on the following findings of fact: 
The Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter 
DHHS) has been involved with [the father] since at least 2009. . . .  
[T]he Department became involved again, following the birth of 
[his youngest daughter], [in June 2016].  She was born drug 
affected. . . .  Because of other reports of drug use by [the mother 
and the father], and domestic violence between them, the 
Department met with the father at his residence. . . .  This residence 
was actually a bedroom in [a friend’s] apartment, and it was 
cluttered.  On June 20, 2016, the mother was arrested for assaulting 
the father. . . .  On this same date, harmful chemicals were 
discovered in the father’s residence, and he was ultimately 
arrested, 
charged 
and 
convicted 
of 
Operation 
of 
a 
 
3 
Methamphetamine Lab.  [The oldest daughter] was found to be 
filthy and was placed in Interim care out of concern that she may 
have been present while the Lab was in operation.  The father 
denied at the hearing that this was the case, but did acknowledge 
that the Lab was located at his stated residence. . . .   
 
 
[The father’s] treatment with [a treatment provider] started 
in August 2017, and lasted until he was terminated from the 
program, for hanging up on treatment personnel who were 
attempting to conduct a pill count on December 28, 2017. . . .  It is 
also noted that the father made no further effort to get back into 
counseling, and was not in counseling at the time of the hearing on 
January 24, 2018.   
  
 
[The father] tested positive for cocaine in the fall of 2017, 
which he denies.  In 2012, he was convicted of Assault, Criminal 
Trespass and Theft.  He denied the assault during his testimony.  In 
2009, he was convicted of Sexual Abuse of a minor. . . .  His refusal 
to accept full responsibility for his actions, has more significance 
with the court, than the convictions themselves.  He has fathered 
six children and does not provide care for any of them.  The record 
reflects that he previously discontinued treatment in November of 
2016, while he was waiting for the resolution of his charge for 
Operating a Methamphetamine Lab.  Similarly, his denial that the 
children were anywhere near the methamphetamine lab does not 
appear to ring true.  The lab was operated at [his residence] during 
the spring of 2016.  The record reflects that during this time the 
children were present upon those premises.   
 
Of additional concern to the court is the father’s continued 
relationship with [the mother]. . . .  This concerns the court greatly, 
with respect to whether he is putting the needs of his children first, 
as he also acknowledged that [the mother] is not good for him or 
the children.  It should be noted that [the mother] consented to a 
Termination of her parental rights on June 27, 2017.  [The father] 
has alternatively stated that his relationship with [the mother] 
ended fourteen months ago, or two months ago, and it is clear that 
his association with her continued until the hearing in January.    
 
4 
 
. . . .  
 
[The father] has engaged in counseling and treatment with [a 
treatment provider] for a sustained period of five months before 
they terminated him from treatment.  A cocaine relapse was the 
significant blemish during this time period.  The court is concerned 
about [the father’s] termination from treatment. . . .  His failure to 
follow up with other treatment is also of concern.  His continued 
association with [the mother] at a time when all of his efforts 
should have been directed toward reunification with his children 
may be the biggest concern of all.   
 
. . . .  
 
In the present case, [the oldest child] was born on 
May 5, 2014, and [the youngest child] was born on June 6, 2016.  
The children have been out of their parent’s custody since 
June 20, 2016. . . .  In the case of [the youngest child], nearly her 
entire life has been spent in the care and custody of [her foster 
parents].  The same is the case with [the oldest child] since June of 
2016.  Both children have been living with the [foster parents] for 
well over one and a half years.  The father is not in a position to 
“soon secure full-time parenting,” and his future prospects to do so, 
are at best uncertain, and a long time in the future.    
 
The court concludes by clear and convincing evidence that 
[the father] is unable to protect the children from jeopardy and 
these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time period 
which is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs.  The 
father has simply not made sufficient progress with his counseling 
and treatment, nor has he shown a demonstrated commitment to 
follow through on this.  He is unemployed, without suitable 
housing, and has a difficult time accepting responsibility for his 
actions.  In addition, his continued association with [the mother], 
when he acknowledges that this is bad for both him and the 
children, causes this court to conclude that he is not ready to 
assume full time parenting responsibilities nor is he likely to be 
 
5 
ready in the short to medium term, and certainly not within the 
three months proposed by [the father].  Similarly, [the father] is 
unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a 
time which is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs. 
 
[¶5]  Contrary to the father’s contentions, given these findings and the 
court’s other specific findings of fact, there is competent evidence in the record 
to support the trial court’s conclusion that the father (1) is unable to protect his 
children from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within 
a time period that is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs and 
(2) is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a time 
that is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s 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.  Additionally, the evidence supports the court’s determination 
that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.  
See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a); In re A.H., 2013 ME 85, ¶ 16, 77 A.3d 1012.  
The court did not err in finding, or abuse its discretion in its ultimate 
conclusion, that the termination of the father’s parental rights was in the 
children’s best interests.  See id. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6 
Aaron B. Rowden, Esq., Waterville, 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 
 
 
Augusta District Court docket number PC-2016-47 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY