MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions

Decision: 2019 ME	167

Docket: Ken-19-291

Submitted

On	Briefs: December	17,	2019

Decided: December	19,	2019

Panel: SAUFLEY,	C.J.,	and	ALEXANDER,	MEAD,	GORMAN,	JABAR,	and HUMPHREY,	JJ.

IN	RE	CHILD	OF	NICHOLE	W.

PER	CURIAM

[¶1]	 Nichole	 W.	 appeals	 from	 a	 judgment	 of	 the	 District	 Court	

(Waterville,	 Stanfill,	 J.)	 terminating	 her	 parental	 rights	 to	 her	 child.1	 	 See	

22 M.R.S.	§ 4055(1)(A)(1)(a),	(1)(B)(2)(a),	(b)(i)-(iv)(2018).		The	court did	not	

err	or	abuse	its	discretion	in	terminating	the	mother’s	parental	rights,	and	we	

affirm the	judgment.

[¶2]	 	In	 January	 2018,	 when	 the	 child	 was	 less	 than	 a	 month	 old,	 the	

Department	of	Health	and	Human	Services	filed	a	petition	for	a	child	protection	

order	and	requested	a	preliminary	protection	order	because the	mother had

checked	 out	 of	 the	 hospital	 against	 medical	 advice	 and	 left	 her	 child	 at	 the	

hospital	without	arranging	for	the	child’s	care.		See 22	M.R.S.	§§	4032,	4034(1)	

 1		As	of	the	time	that	the	mother’s	parental	rights	were	terminated,	paternity	of	the	child	had	not	

been	established.		Service	by	publication	was	ordered	on	the	same	day	that	the	termination	order	

was	entered.		
2

(2018).	 	 The	 court	 (Montgomery,	 J.)	 entered	 a	 preliminary	 protection	 order	

granting	 custody	 of	 the	 child	 to	 the	 Department.	 	 See	 22	 M.R.S.	 §	 4034(2)	

(2018).		

[¶3]		Although	the	mother was	afforded	the	opportunity	for	a	summary	

preliminary	hearing,	she did	not	appear.		See	22	M.R.S.	§	4034(4)	(2018).		Nor	

did	 she	 appear	 at	 the	 subsequent	 jeopardy	 hearing	 held	 in	 May 2018.2	 	 See	

22 M.R.S.	§	4035	(2018).		Based	on	the	evidence	presented	at	that	hearing,	the	

court	(Stanfill,	J.)	found	the	child	to	be	in	circumstances	of	jeopardy	because	the	

mother	had	missed	 visits	with	 the	child,	including	at	 the	 hospital;	had	made	

poor	decisions	about	her	own	health;	and	had	experienced	housing	instability	

and	 domestic	 violence	 without	 participating	 in	 services	 to	 alleviate	 these	

circumstances.		The	court	ordered	in	late	2018	that	the	Department	could	cease	

reunification	efforts	with	the	mother because	the	mother	had	abandoned	the	

child.		

[¶4]	 	 The	 Department	 filed	 a	 petition	 for	 termination	 of	 the	 mother’s	

parental	 rights	 in	 April	 2019.	 	 Despite	 having	 notice	 of	 the	 July	 2019	

termination	hearing,	 the	mother	did	 not	appear.		 The	court	heard	testimony

 2		Although	the	mother	was	present	in	the	courthouse	on	that	day,	she	was	warned	by	a	Judicial	

Marshal	about	her	behavior	and	left	the	premises	before	the	hearing	began.		
3

from the	 child’s	 foster	 mother, the Department	 caseworker assigned	 to	 the	

mother, the	 mother’s	 assigned	 community	 counseling	 caseworker,	 and the	

guardian	 ad	litem.3 The	court	 terminated	 the	mother’s	 parental	 rights	upon

finding	as	follows:

This	case	started	 [with]	[the	mother]	having	left	 the	hospital .	 .	 .	

after	giving	birth	and	not	seeing	her	newborn	for	a	week.		She	has	

a	 long	 history	 of	 housing instability,	 mental	 health	 issues,	 and	

remaining	in	domestically	violent	relationships.	 The	court	has	no	

evidence	of	any	rehabilitation	efforts,	and	it	appears	she	remains	

without	her	 own	housing.		Most	importantly,	she	has	abandoned	

her	daughter.		She	has	not	seen	her	in	well	over	a	year	and	has	no	

relationship	 with	 her.	 	 [The	 child]	 deserves	 permanency.	 	 She	 is	

thriving	in	her	foster	family.	 It	is	in	her	best	interest	to	be	freed	for	

adoption.

[¶5]		The	mother	timely	appealed	from	the	judgment	but	has	not	raised	

any	 arguments	 on	 appeal.	 	Her	 counsel	 filed	 a	 brief,	 in	 accordance	 with	 the	

procedure	outlined	in In	re	M.C.,	2014	ME	128,	¶	7,	104	A.3d	139,	indicating	the	

absence	 of	 any	 arguable	 issue	 of	 merit, and he notified	 the	 mother	that	 she	

could file	a	separate	brief if	she	believed	there	was	a	valid	ground	for	appeal	

and	 could	 request	 the	 appointment	 of	 new	 counsel	 if	 she	 desired	 new	

representation.		We	entered	an	order	authorizing	the	mother to	file	a	separate	

 3	 	 Although	 the	 guardian	 ad	 litem’s	 final	 report and	 three other	 previous	 reports were not	

admitted	 at	 trial, see	 22	 M.R.S.	 § 4005(1)(D)	 (2018),	 the	 court’s	 findings	 are	 fully	 supported	 by	

witness	testimony	and	the	reports	of	the	guardian	ad	litem that were	properly	admitted	in	evidence.		
4

brief by	 October	 17,	 2019,	 but	 the	 mother did	 not	 do	 so.	 	 We	 granted	 the	

Department's	 motion	 to	 consider	 this	 appeal	 on	 the	 mother's	 brief	 without	

briefing	from	the	Department.		

[¶6]	 If	a court	finds	multiple	bases	for	parental	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.		Here,	the court	found	

the	 mother	 unfit	 based	 on	 all	 four	 grounds	 of	 unfitness,	 see	 22	 M.R.S.	

§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(iv),	and	the	evidence	is	sufficient	to	support	all of	those	

grounds,	 including abandonment.

4	 	 See	 22	 M.R.S.	 § 4002(1-A)	 (2018). The	

evidentiary	record	further	supports	the	court’s	determination	that	termination	

of	the	mother’s	parental	rights	is	in	the	best	interest	of	the	child,	who,	by	the	

time	the	judgment	was	entered,	had	spent	the	first year	and	a	half	of	her	young	

life	 in	 foster	 care.	 	 See id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).	 	 We	 affirm	 the	 court’s	

well-supported	judgment.

The	entry	is:

Judgment affirmed.

 4		The	other	bases	for	termination	are	that	the	mother	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,”	she	“has	been	unwilling	or	unable	to	take	responsibility	for	the	

child	within	a	time	which	is	reasonably	calculated	to	meet	the	child’s	needs,”	and	she	“has	failed	to	

make	a	good	faith	effort	to	rehabilitate	and	reunify	with	the	child	pursuant	to	section	4041.”		22	M.R.S.	

§	4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i),	(ii),	(iv).
5

Christopher	S.	Berryment,	Esq.,	Mexico,	for	appellant	Mother

With	leave	of	the	Court,	the	Department	of	Health	and	Human	Services	did	not	

file	a	brief

Waterville	District	Court	docket	number	PC-2018-3

FOR	CLERK	REFERENCE	ONLY