MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 201 9 ME 20 Docket: Han

- 18

- 350 Submitted

On	B riefs : January	17,	2019 Decided: February 5,	2019
Panel: ALEXANDER , MEAD, GORMAN,	JABAR , HJELM, and HUMPHREY , JJ.

IN	RE	CHILDREN	OF	TRAVIS	G.

PER	CURIAM [¶1] Travis	 G.	 and	 Kathleen	 T. appeal	 from an	 order	 entered	 by the District	Court	 (Ellsworth, Roberts , J

. )	 finding	 that	 their	minor	children	 are	in jeopardy	 pursuant	 to 22 M.R.S.	 §	 4035	 (201 7 )

. The	 mother	 and	 father challenge	the	sufficiency	of	the	evidence	supporting	the	court’s	finding s ,	by	a preponderance	of	 the	evidence,	 that	 the	children	are	in	jeopardy. W e	affirm the	judgment. 1
I.		BACKGROUND [¶ 2 ] The	 Department of Health	 and	 Human	 Services filed	 a	 child protection	 petition	 against	 the	 mother	 and	 father	 as	 to the ir three	 minor

1 Additionally,	 the	 mother	 and	 father	 contend	 that	 the	 court	 erred	 by	 finding	 that	 the Department	 of	 Health	 and	 Human	 Services	 made	 reasonable	 efforts	 to	 prevent	 removal	 of	 the children,	 and	 erred	 by	 finding	 that	 the	 Department	 made	 reasonable	 efforts	 to	 reu nify	 and rehabilitate	the	family. See 22	M.R.S.	4036

- B(3),	4041	(2017)

. Contrary	to	the	mother	and	father’s assertions,	 there	 is	 competent	 record	 evidence	 to	 support	 the	 court’s	 finding s ,	 and	 we	 will	 not address	th ese contention s further. See In	re Doris	G. ,	2006	ME	142,	¶¶ 8

- 9,	1 4

- 17,	912	A.2d	572

.2 children	 in	 February	 2018,	 alleging	 that	 the	 mother	 and	 father	 chronically neglected	 the	 children’s	 medical	 and	 developmental	 needs,	 failed	 to provide safe	 and	 sanitary	 housing,	 and failed	 to	 adequately	 supervise	 the	 children.
After	a	three

- day	testimonial	hearing,	by order dated July	31,	2018,	the	court
found by	 a	 preponderance	 of	 the	 evidence that the children were in
circumstances	of jeopardy	to	their	health	and	welfare

. See 22 M.R.S.	§	4035

. [¶ 3 ] The	 court	 based	 its	 finding s of	jeopardy	 on the	 following	 factual findings ,	 which	 are	 supported	 by	 competent	 record	 evidence. 2 See id

. § 4035(2)

. With	regard	to	the	mother,	the	court found : Mother: [Infant	 child] has	 gross	 motor	 delays. She	 was	 in	 the 1st percentile	for	weight	when	she	entered	State	custody. [Middle child’s] vaccinations	were	delayed. [Middle child and	oldest	child] had	 elevated	 Ages	 and	 Stages	 evaluation	 scores	 ind icating significant	 developmental	 delays. [Mother]	 lacks	 the	 ability	 to care	for	3	children	on	her	own	at	this	time.		She	needs	to	learn	[to] develop	better	parenting	skills	and	demonstrate	an	attachment	to her	children. Their	current	 residence,	with	Fat her’s	 parents [,] is not	 suitable	 for	 children	 of	 their	 ages	 due	 to	 unsanitary conditions

. [Mother’s]	 level	 of	 commitment	 to	 her	 relationship with	 [father]	 is	 questionable	 and	 may	 impact	 her	 attachment	 to their	children. With	regard	to	the	father,	the	c ourt found : Father	 .	 .	 .	 lacks	 the	 ability	 to	 provide	 significant	 assistance	 to [ paternal	grandmother ]. He	does	not	have	 the	ability	 to	care	 for

2 Neither	parent	moved	 for	additional	 findings	of	 fact	pursuant	 to	M.R.	Civ.	P.	52(a)	after	 the court	entered	its	judgment.3 the	 children	 on	 his	 own	 as	 he	 is	 working	 and	 attempting	 to establish	 a	 safe	 home	 for	 the	 family. [Father’s]	 l evel	 of commitment	 to	 [mother]	 is	 questionable	 as	 well. He	 cannot provide	 the	children the assistance	 that	 they	need	at	 this	 time	 to overcome	their	developmental	delays. [¶ 4 ] The	 mother and	 father timely	 appeal	 the	 court’s	 finding s of jeopardy. See 22	M.R.S.	§ 4006	(2017) ; M.R.	App.	P.	2B(c)(1)

. II.		DISCUSSION [¶ 5 ] The	 mother	 and	 father	 raise challenges	 to	 the sufficiency	 of	 the
evidence to	 support	 the court’s	 finding s of	jeopardy. We	 review	 the	 court’s findings	for	clear	error,	and	will	affirm	the	court’s	jeopardy	determination “if any	evidence	in	the	record	can	rationally	be	understood	to	establish	as	more likely	than	not	that	the	[children	were]	in	circumstances	of	jeopardy	to	[th eir]
health	and	welfare

. ” See In	re	Destiny	T .,	2009	ME	26,	¶	14,	965	A.2d	872

. [¶ 6 ] Contrary	 to	 the	 mother	 and	 father’s	 contentions,	 there	 is competent	 record	 evidence	 that	can rationally be	understood	 to	establish	as more	likely	 than	 not	 that	 the	children	 are	in	circumstances	 of	jeopardy. See
In re	 E

. L .,	 2014	 ME	 87,	 ¶¶	 12

- 14,	 96	 A.3d	 691

. The	 evidence	 presented
establishes	that	the	mother	and	father have	neglected	the	health	and	welfare
of	 the	 three	 children and	 placed	 them in	 a	 threat	 of	 serious	 harm. See
22 M.R.S.	 §	 4002(6)(A)	 (201 7 ) .	 	 Specifically,	 the evidence	 demonstrates	 that4 the mother	 and	 father	 have neglected the	 children’s	 medical	 and
devel opmental	needs	and	have	 failed	 to	provide	appropriate	housing	 for	 the
three children. See In	 re	 Dorothy	 V .,	 2001	 ME	 97,	 ¶	 8	 n. 2 ,	 774	 A.2d	 1118

. Because	the	court’s	findings	are	supported	by	competent	record	evidence,	we
do	 not	 disturb	 the	 court’s determination	 that	 the	 child ren	 are in circumstances	 of	jeopardy. See 22	M.R.S.	 § § 4002(6)(A),	4035 ; In	 re	Child	 of Tiffany	F .,	2018	ME	137,	¶ 5,	195	A.3d	84

. The	entry	is: Judgment affirmed.

Mary	Kellett	Gray,	Esq.,	Brooklin,	for	appellant m other William	 B.	 Blaisdell,	 IV,	 Esq.,	 Blaisdell	 &	 Blaisdell,	 Ellsworth,	 for	 appellant f

ather Janet	T.	Mills,	Attorney	General,	and	Hunter	Umphrey,	Asst.	Atty.	Gen.,	Office of	 the	 Attorney	 General,	 Augusta,	 for	 appellee	 Department	 of	 Health	 and Human	Services

Ellsworth	District	Court	docket	number	PC

- 2018

- 05 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY