MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 201 7 ME 164 Docket: Ken

- 17

- 72 Submitted

On	B riefs : June	29,	2017 Decided: July	20,	2017
Panel: SAUFLEY,	C.J., and	ALEXANDER , MEAD, GORMAN,	JABAR , HJELM, and HUMPHREY , JJ.

IN	RE	RYDER	C

.
HJELM, J. [ ¶1] The mother	and	 father of Ryder	C

. appeal	 from	a	judgment	of	the District	Court	( Augusta, Nale,	J. )	terminating their parental	rights pursuant	to
22 M.R.S.	 § 4055(1)(A)(1)( a), (1) (B)(2) (a), (1)(B)(2) (b)(i) ,	 and	 (1

- A)(E) (2016)

. Both parent s challenge	the court’ s	findings	that	they	are	unfit and	its
conclusion that	 termination	 of their parental	 rights	 is	 in	 the	 child’s best
interest

. Because the evidence	supports	the court ’s findings and the	court did
not	 abuse	 its	 discretion or	 otherwise	 err in	 making its best	 interest
determination ,	 we	 affirm	 the	 judgment

. See In	 re	 Cameron	 B. ,	 2017	 ME	 18, ¶¶ 10

- 11,	154	A.3d	1199

. [¶ 2 ] Based on	 evidence	 presented	 during	 a	 three

- day	 hearing	 held	in December	 2016	 and	 January	 2017, the	 court	 found	 by	 clear	 and	 convincing
evidence ,	both	directly and based	on a	statutory	presumption	of	unfitness, see2 22	 M.R.S.	 §	 4055(1

- A)(E) , 1 that	 the	 parents are unable	 to	 protect	 the	 child from	jeopardy	 and	 that	 those	 circumstances	 are	 unlikely	 to	 change	within	 a time	 calculated	 to	 meet	 the	 child’s	 needs, see	 id. §	 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)

. See
In re	Robert	S. ,	2009	ME	18,	¶	15,	966	A.2d	894

. The	court also determined that	termination	of	the	parental	rights	of	the	mother	and	father	is	in	the best
interest	of	the	child ,	who	was	three	years	old	at	the	time	of	the	hearing

. See
id. ; 22	M.R.S.	§	4055(1)(B)(2)(a). [¶ 3 ] In	 reaching	 those	 determinations,	 t he	 cou rt	 made	 the following factual	findings ,	which	are	supported	by	the	record. See In	re	Mya	E. ,	2017	ME 93,	¶	2,

--- A.3d

--- . [¶ 4 ] The	child	was	born	at thirty

- two weeks	with serious medical and developmental	disabilities that	still profoundly affect	him

. The	child	has been
under the	 care	 of a	 cardiologist, an orthopedic	 surgeon, a geneticist, an eye doctor, a neurologist,	and an ear,	nose , and	throat	physician , in	addition	to	his pediatrician. Due	 to	 his	 medical	 needs,	 the	 child’s	 survival	 depends	 on “consistent	and	unwavering	attention” and	care from	his	caregivers.

1 Title 22	M.R.S.	§ 4055(1

- A)(E) (2016) provides: The	court	may	presume	 that	 the	parent	is	unwilling	or	unable	 to	protect	 the	child from jeopardy	and	these	circumstances	are	unlikely	to	change	within	a	time	which is	reasonab ly	calculated	to	meet	the	child’ s	needs	if .	.	.	[t] he child	has	been	placed	in the	legal	custody	 or	care	 of	 the	department	 for	at	least	9	months,	and	 the	parents have	been	offered	or	received	services	 to	correct	 the	situation	but	have	refused	or have	made	no	significant	effort	to	correct	the	situation.3 [¶ 5 ] Additionally,	w hile	he	was	in	his parents’ care, the	child suffered from	“significant	environmental	failure	to	thrive.”		He was	not	adequately	fed
and ,	during	his	second	 year of	life , essentially gained	no	weight. The	child’s medical	 care	 was	 compromised	 because his parents caused	 him	 to	 miss
dozens of	 scheduled	 medical	 appointments. The	 court	 accepted	 the
assessment	of	a physician who	testif ied that	this	was	“one	of	the	most	severe cases	of	parental	neglect”	he	had	seen	in	thirty	years	of	practice. During	that time,	t he	mother also abused her	prescription medications. [¶ 6 ] After	 the	child had	been placed	in	 foster	ca r e , which	 occurred	in August	 2015 ,	 he	was	 returned	 to his	mother’s	 custody for	a	 trial	 placement. As	the	court	found,	that	effort	was	“a	mistake.”		During	the	six	weeks when the
child was	 with	 her in the	 spring	 of	 2016 ,	 the	 mother	 did	 not	 take him to “crucial	 scheduled	 appointments ” ; she did	 not	 adequately	 feed him ,	 causing him	 to	 lose	 weight;	 and she deliberately overstated to	 the	 child’s	 medical provider	how	much	food	she	was	giving	him. [¶ 7 ] T he	father	suffers	from mental	health	issues , but he h as	refused	to participate	in	individual	counseling	as	req uired	by	his	reunification	plan and has	 failed	 to	 submit	 to	 drug	 screens	 as	 requested. He	 does	 not	 understand why	the	child	was	placed	in	the	care	of	the	Department	of	Health	and	Human4
Services. The	 court agreed	 with	 the	 father’s	 own	 assessment that	 he	 is presently	unable	to	care for the	child

. [¶ 8 ] Since being	placed in	 foster	care, the	child is	in	“reasonably	good health,”	he	has	consistently	gained	weight,	and	his	physiological	development has	been	“spectacular

. ” His	foster	parent	meets his significant needs, such	as providing physical	 and	 occupational	 therapy and taking the	 child	 to	 his medical	appointments

. Both parents , on	the	other	hand , have	missed many	of the	child’s	appointments, and	t he	father	has	not	appeared	for	most	scheduled
visits

. T he	court	found	that	the	mother’s	excuses	for	the	missed	appointments
were	not	credible

. Although the parents	love	 the	child, both	have	 their	own “incredible	needs,”	and neither	is	able	 to	manage the	demands	 of the	child’s care	“or	even	recognize	what	those	needs	are.” [¶ 9 ] The	court’s	factual	findings	explain	the	serious	needs	of	the	child, the	 parents’	 failure to	 make	 a	 significant	 effort	 to improve	 their	 caregiving
abilities while	 the	 child has	 been in the	 Department’s custody,	 and their inability to assume responsibility	 of	 caring	 for	 the	 child. T he findings	 of parental	 unfitness	 were supported	 by the evidence , and	 the	 court did	 not abuse	 its	 discretion	 or	 err	 in	 determining	 t hat terminatio n	 of	 the	 parental5 rights	of	 the	mother	and	 father will	serve	 the	child’s	best	interest

. See In	 re
Cameron	Z. ,	2016	ME	162,	¶¶	17

- 18,	150 A.3d	805

. The	entry	is: Judgment	affirmed.

Elyse	M.	Apantaku,	Esq.,	Schneider	&	Brewer ,	Waterville,	for appellant	m other Thomas	 W.	 Bell, Esq., The	 Law	 Office	 of	 Thomas	 W.	 Bell, Topsham,	 for appellant	f ather 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

- 2015

- 3 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY