MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions

Decision: 2017 ME	164

Docket: Ken-17-72

Submitted

On	Briefs: 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 parents 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,	see	
2

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,	 the	 court	 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	reasonably	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,	while	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	testified that	this	was	“one	of	the	most	severe	

cases	of	parental	neglect”	he	had	seen	in	thirty	years	of	practice.		During	that	

time,	the	mother also abused	her	prescription medications.	

[¶6]		After	 the	child	had	been placed	in	 foster	care, 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]		The	father	suffers	from mental	health	issues, but he has	refused	to	

participate	in	individual	counseling	as	required	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	Human	
4

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	the	father	has	not	appeared	for	most	scheduled	

visits.		The	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. The	 findings	 of	

parental	 unfitness	 were supported	 by	 the evidence, and	 the	 court did	 not	

abuse	 its	 discretion	 or	 err	 in	 determining	 that	 termination	 of	 the	 parental	
5

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	mother

Thomas	 W.	 Bell, Esq.,	 The	 Law	 Office	 of	 Thomas	 W.	 Bell,	 Topsham,	 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-2015-3

FOR	CLERK	REFERENCE	ONLY