MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 201 8 ME 133 Docket: Sag

- 18

- 121 Submitted

On	B riefs : September	26,	2018 Decided: October	4,	2018
Panel: SAUFLEY,	C.J.,	and ALEXANDER , MEAD, GORMAN,	JABAR , and HUMPHREY , JJ.

IN	RE	CHILD	OF	CHRISTINE	M.

PER	CURIAM [¶1] Christine	M.	appeals	 from	a	judgment	 of	 the	District	Court	 (West Bath, Mathews,	J .)	terminating	her	parental	rights	to	her	child. 1 She	argues that

t he record	fails	to	support	the	court ’ s	findings	that	she	is	an	unfit	parent	and
that termination	is	in	 the best	interest of	 the	child.		She	also	asserts that the Department	of	Health	and	Human	Services	failed	to	make	reasonable	efforts	to reunify the	family

. We	affirm	the	judgment.
I.		BACKGROUND [¶2 ] In	 March of 2017,	 just	 ten	 days	 after	 this child

— the	 mother’s
fourth 2

— was	 born,	 t he	 Department	 filed	 a	 child	 protection	 petition and a request	 for a	 preliminary	 protection	 order , alleging that the mother	 had a

1 The	child’s biological father	is,	at	this	time,	unknown.

2 The	mother	has	three	older	children;	she	agreed	to	orders	giving	custody	of	two	children	to	their respective	fathers	and	consented	to	a	termination	of	parental	rights	regarding	the	other	child

.2 history	 of	 substance	 abuse	 and	 mental	 health	 issues,	 and	 that	 she	 failed	 to access	adequate	 prenatal	care

. See 22	M.R.S.	 § § 4032 ,	4034(1) (2017)

. The
District	Court ( Dobson , J. ) entered	a preliminary	protection order ,	placing	the child	in	the	Department’ s	custody

. See 22	M.R.S.	§	4034(2) (2017)

. T he mother
waived her	 right	 to a	 summary	 preliminary	 hearing

. See 22	 M.R.S. § 4034(3), (4) (2017)

. [¶3 ] In	June of 2017,	the District	Court entered	a	jeopardy	order with	the
mother ’ s agreement , finding jeopardy	 to	 the	 child	 based	 on her	 history	 of substance	abuse	and	mental	illness,	her	failure	to	seek	adequate	prenatal	care, and	 her	 past	 history	 with	 the	 Department

. See 22	 M.R.S.	 § § 4035 ,	 4036(1) (2017)

. In	November of 2017,	the	Department	filed	a	pet ition	for	termination of	parental	rights ,	alleging that the	mother stopped	attending	her	mental	health counseling,	failed	to	participate	in	drug	testing,	and stopped visiting	with	her
child

— requirements	of	the	dispositional	agreement	in	the	jeopardy	order

. See 22	M.R.S.	§	4052 (2017)

. After	a	testimonial	hearing,	the	court	( Mathews,	J. ),	by order	 entered	 March	 12,	 made	 the	 following	 findings	 of	 fact,	 which	 are supported	by	competent	record	evidence. See 22	M.R.S.	§	4054 (2017)

. 1. [The	 mother]	 ceased all	 counseling	 in	 July	 of	 2017	 and thereafter	 failed	 to	 involve	 herself	 in	 any	 counseling	 for	 the issues	identified	in	the	Jeopardy	Order.3

.	.	.	. 2. [The	mother]	last	visited	[the	child]	on	August	3,	2017.		She	has not	seen	this	soon	to	be one - year	old	child	for	seven	months.
3. [The	 mother]	 has	 missed	 all	 her	 drug	 screen	 tests	 since	 the Jeopardy	Order	was	entered.

.	.	.	. 4. [The	 mother] has	 failed	 to	 engage	 with	 the	 Department	 in accomplishing	 any	 of	 the	 goals	 of	 reunification since	 the Jeopardy	Order	was	entered.
5. [The	mother] explains	her	lack	 of	 visitation	and	 the	 failure	 to attend	 counseling	 as	 a	 failure	 of	 the	 Department	 to	 provide transportation. The	 Court	 does	 not	 find	 her	 explanation believable.
6. [The	mother] ex plains	her	failure	to	take	the	drug	screen	tests as	 the	 Department’s	 scheduling	 the	 dates	 when	 she	 had	 her other	children	in	care. The	Court	does	not	find	her	explanation believable.

.	.	.	. .	.	.	The	child	was	placed	with	the	foster	care	parents	whe n	he was	ten	days	old.		As	a	result,	little	bonding	between	mother	and child	has	occurred.		Mother	was	provided	a	telephone	number	by the	 foster	 care	 mother	 and	 encouraged	 to	 call	 and	 arrange visitation.		She	has	not	contacted	the	foster	care	mother	in	the last seven	 months.	 	 Mother	 has	 failed	 completely	 to	 engage	with	 the Department	 and	 perform	any	 of	 the	 required	 acts	anticipated	by the	Jeopardy	Order	and	Reunification	Plan.		She	is	not	at	this	time in	 any	 different	 position [than] at	 the	 time	 of	 the	 June 2017 Jeopardy	Order.

.	.	.	.4

.	 .	 . [The	 child] needs	 a	 permanent	 home	 and	waiting	 for	 [the mother]	 to	 address	 her	 issues	 and	 create	 a	 bonded	 relationship after	she	has	failed	to	do	anything	in	the	last	seven	months	is	not	in his	best	interest. [¶ 4 ] Based	 on	 these	 findings,	 the	court determined that the	mother	is unwilling	 or	 unable	 to protect	 the	 child	 from	 jeopardy within	 a	 time that is reasonably	calculated	to	meet	the	child’s	needs,	that	she	is	unwilling	or	unable

to ta ke	responsibility	for	th e	child within	a	time that is	reasonably	calculated	to
meet	 the	 child’s	 needs ,	 and that	 she failed to	 make	 a	 good	 faith	 effort	 to rehabilitate	and	reunify	with	the	child. See 22	M.R.S.	§	4055(1)(B)(2)(b) (i),	(ii), (iv) (2017)

. The	court	also concluded th at	termination	of	the	mother’s	parental rights	was	in	the	child’s	best	interest	and thus terminated	the	mother’s	parental rights. S ee 22	 M.R.S.	 §	 40 55(1) (2017)

. The	 mother	 timely	 appealed

. See
22 M.R.S.	§	4006	(2017) ; M.R.	App.	P.	2B(c)(1)

. II. DISCUSSION [¶5 ] The mother	argues on	appeal that	 the	 record	 fails	 to	 support	 the court’s	findings that	she	is	an	unfit	parent	and	that	termination	of	her	parental rights	is	in	the	child’s	best	interest .		She	also	asserts that the	Department	failed to	make	reasonable	efforts	to	reunify	the	family.5 [¶6 ] To	terminate	parental	rights , a trial	court	must first find one	of	the four	statutory	bases	of	parental	unfitness	in 22	M.R.S.	§	4055(1)(B)(2)(b) , and
then	it must consider	th e	best	interest	of	the	child. In	re	Scott	S. ,	2001	ME	114, ¶¶	19

- 21,	775 A.2d	1144

. We	have said that “ [w] here	the	court	finds	multiple bases	 for	 unfitness,	 we	 will	 affirm	 if	 any	 one	 of	 the	 alternative	 bases	 is supported	 by	 clear	 and	 convincing evidence.” In	 re	M.B. , 2013	ME	 46,	 ¶	 37,
65 A.3d	1260

. Clear	and	convincing	evidence	is	that	evidence	from	which	the court	“could	reasonably	have	been	persuaded	that	the	required	factual	findings were	 proved	 to	 be	 highly	 probable.” In	 re	 David	 G. , 659 A.2d	 859,	 861 (Me. 1995) (quotation	marks	omitted). We	review	the	court’s	factual	findings
of parental	 unfitness and	 of	 a	 child’s	 best	 interest for	 clear error while reviewing its	ultimate	conclusion on best	interest for an abuse	 of	discretion

. In re	Mat hew	H. ,	2017	ME	151,	¶	2,	167	A.3d	561

. [¶7 ] The	District	Court’s factual findings

— that	the	mother stopped drug screenings,	mental	health	counseling,	and	visits	to	her	child

— are supported	by
competent evidence	in	the	record

. See In	re	David	G. , 659	A.2d at 861	(“If	there is	rational	or	competent	support	in	the	record	for	the	trial	court ’ s	findings,	this
Court	must	sustain	them. ”)

. We	further conclude that	the court did	not	abuse
its	discretion	in finding that	termination	of	the	mother’s	parental	rights was in6 the	 child’s	 best	interest. See 22	M. R.S.	 § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a ) ; In	 re	Mathew	H. , 2017	ME	151,	¶	2,	167	A.3d	561. Finally,	t he record	supports	the	court’s	finding that	the	Department	made	a	good	faith	effort	to	reunify	the	mother	and	child and	that	the	mother	repeatedly	failed	to	follow	the	reunification	plan. See In	re
Sara	K. ,	611	A.2d	71,	75	(Me.	1992) (explaining	that	althoug h the	Department and	the	parent	have	a	shared	responsibility	to	make	good	faith	efforts to	reunify the	family,	“the	Department	is	not	charged	with	the	duty	of	persisting	in	efforts that	can	only	be	destined	for	failure”)

. [¶8 ] Because competent evidence exists	to	support the court’s finding of parental	unfitness	and the	finding	that	termination	of	parental	rights	is	in	the
child’s best	interest,	and	because	 the	court	did	not	abuse	its	discretion in	its
best

- interest determination ,	we affirm the judgment	terminating	the	mother’s parental	rights.
T he	entry	is: Judgment affirmed.

Jennifer	A.	Davis,	Esq.,	Law	Office	of	Jennifer	A.	Davis,	Topsham,	for	appellant Mother Janet	T.	Mills,	Attorney	General,	and	Meghan	Szylvian,	Asst.	Atty.	Gen., Office	of the	Attorney	General,	Augusta,	for	appellee	Department	of	Health	and	Human Services7

West	Bath	District	Court	docket	number	PC

- 2017

- 3 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY