Title: In re Child of Shai F.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2020 ME 67 
Docket: 
Cum-19-482 
Submitted 
On Briefs: May 4, 2020 
Decided: 
May 12, 2020 
 
Panel: 
MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. 
 
 
IN RE CHILD OF SHAI F. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Shai F. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland, 
Powers, J.) terminating her parental rights to her child.1  Counsel for the mother 
filed, in accordance with the procedure we outlined in In re M.C., 2014 ME 128, 
¶¶ 6-7, 104 A.3d 139, a brief indicating that there are no arguable issues of 
merit for appeal.  We entered an order permitting the mother to file a 
supplemental brief on or before February 19, 2020, but she did not do so.  
Because the record supports the court’s findings that the mother is an unfit 
parent and that termination of her parental rights is in the child’s best interest, 
we affirm the judgment. 
[¶2]  In June 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services filed a 
petition for child protection and preliminary protection orders.  See 22 M.R.S. 
                                         
1  The child’s father consented to termination of his parental rights in a judgment dated 
October 7, 2019.  He is not a party to this appeal. 
 
2 
§ 4032 (2020).  The petition alleged that the mother had exposed her child to a 
dangerous situation involving a firearm and that the mother had intentionally 
avoided contact with the Department following that incident.  The court 
(Darvin, J.) entered a preliminary protection order the same day and granted 
the Department custody of the child.  See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4034(2), 4036(1)(F) 
(2020).  The mother waived her right to a summary preliminary hearing, see 
22 M.R.S. § 4034(4) (2020), and later consented to the entry of an order finding 
that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy in her care, see 22 M.R.S. § 4035 
(2020).  In December 2018, the Department petitioned to terminate the 
mother’s parental rights.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4052 (2020). 
[¶3]  The court (Powers, J.) held a one-day contested hearing on the 
termination petition in October 2019.  Based on the evidence at the hearing, the 
court entered a judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights to her child.  
In its written decision, the court made the following findings of fact.  
See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2020). 
 
[The child] [has a mental health diagnosis]. . . . All agree he 
needs structure and consistency in his routines.  [The child] 
remains extremely active and likes to be outdoors. . . . He seems 
improved since receiving HCT in-home counseling services, which 
unfortunately have just ended.  The family still needs outpatient 
counseling.  Despite the above issues, [the child] and [the foster 
mother] have a bond.  [The child] is learning to accept boundaries 
set by [the foster mother] and still requires a regular routine.  [The 
 
3 
foster mother] is willing to become a permanent home for [the 
child] should [the mother’s] parental rights be terminated. 
 
 
[The child] has reacted badly at times to his mother’s missed 
visits.  [The mother] has had gaps of up to three months between 
visits.  The mother now is required to confirm her upcoming 
attendance at visits to avoid having [the child] show up when his 
mother does not.  The mother’s visits have been suspended four 
times, typically because she has not properly accessed 
transportation to visit, resulting in missed visits.  [The mother] 
becomes angry when visit suspensions occur.  She at times has had 
twice weekly visits, but the current schedule is supervised contact 
once weekly for two hours.  These have unfortunately been 
suspended since May 1, 2019.[2]  [The child] enjoys the visits with 
his mother, which go well. . . . However, when asked about a living 
location, [the child] states that he likes living with [the foster 
mother]. 
 
 
. . . [The mother] has had multiple residence locations in 
southern Maine.  She had lived in a motel room recently.  [She] has 
been employed regularly at several jobs during this case. . . . 
 
 
[The mother] has had on-going substance use problems 
throughout this case.  Her long-time counselor had diagnosed her 
with cannabis dependence, and the mother admits she smokes 
marijuana daily.  She admitted doing so on the day she testified.  
She has been tested for drugs and alcohol on at least five dates from 
December 2017 to May 2019.  [The mother] denies using cocaine 
despite three positive tests for that illegal drug, a position 
                                         
2  Contrary to the court’s finding, the Department’s caseworker did not testify that the mother’s 
weekly visits with the child have been suspended since May 1, 2019.  In fact, the caseworker testified 
that the mother began once-weekly visits on that date.  Because there is substantial other evidence 
that supports the court’s finding that the mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and 
reunify with the child, it is highly probable that the court’s erroneous finding did not affect its 
ultimate conclusion.  Therefore, the error was harmless.  See In re Child of Stephenie F., 2018 ME 163, 
¶ 2 n.2, 198 A.3d 203.  Moreover, the court’s “misstatement does not undermine the other two 
grounds of parental unfitness found by the court, and each ground, standing on its own, supports a 
termination of parental rights.”  Id. 
 
4 
supported by her counselor/advocate.  The mother remains in 
treatment for mental health and substance use issues with a 
counselor she has seen off and on since June 2018.  This counselor 
has kept her as a client despite her history of “no shows”.  The 
counselor diagnosed her with major depressive disorder as well as 
cannabis dependence.  [The mother] has attended her sessions 
sporadically.  She has made some progress in learning to identify 
the stresses in her life and trying to make changes and 
communicate more confidently.  Much of the mother’s sadness 
revolves around not seeing her son.  She seems to understand the 
negative impact on her son from her failure to attend scheduled 
mother/child visits. 
 
 
The mother is asking the court for more time to reunify with 
her son.  She thinks she could handle her behaviors differently from 
the past.  [The mother] hopes to get an apartment of her own soon.  
Right now she has no such place that would be suitable for [the 
child]. 
 
 
Unfortunately, [the mother] has missed three of seven family 
team meetings.  She has had a checkered history of attending 
counseling, child visits, drug testing, and family team meetings.  She 
has not really progressed in any meaningful way regarding 
reunification efforts due to her lack of engagement.  [The mother] 
was required to undergo her substance use and mental health 
counseling, have case management, get safe housing, visit her child, 
go to drug testing, and stay away from unsafe people.  [The mother] 
has led an unstable life herself and has not been able to deal with 
her several issues, never mind her son’s difficulties.  She has at 
times not been cooperative with DHHS and has shown limited 
insight into her parenting deficits. 
 
 
[¶4]  Except where we have indicated otherwise, see supra n.2, the court’s 
findings are supported by competent record evidence.  See In re Child of 
Nathaniel B., 2019 ME 120, ¶ 5, 212 A.3d 863.  Based on these findings, the court 
 
5 
found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother is an unfit parent 
because (1) she is unable or unwilling to protect her child from jeopardy and 
these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated 
to meet the child’s needs; (2) she has been unable or unwilling to take 
responsibility for her child within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet 
the child’s needs; and (3) she failed to make a good faith effort to reunify with 
the child.  See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv).  The court also found by 
clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights 
is in the child’s best interest.  See id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).  The court’s supported 
findings are sufficient to support these determinations.  See In re Child of 
Nathaniel B., 2019 ME 120, ¶ 5, 212 A.3d 863. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Valerie A. Randall, Esq., Hanly Law, Portland, for appellant mother 
 
With leave of the Court, the Department of Health and Human Services did not 
file a brief 
 
 
Portland District Court docket number PC-2017-52 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY