MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 201 9 ME 167 Docket: Ken

- 19

- 291 Submitted

On	B riefs : December	1 7 ,	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)

. T he	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	a nd	Human	Services	filed	a	petition	for	a	child	protection
order	and requested	a preliminary	protection	order because the	mother had checked	 out	 of	 the	 hospita l	 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	a t	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	instabilit y 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 ] T he	 Depart ment	 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	cou rthouse	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	app ears	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. H er	 counsel	 filed	 a	 brief ,	 in	 accordance	 with	 the procedure	outlined	in In	re	M.C. ,	2014	ME	128,	¶	7,	104	A.3d	139 ,	i ndicating	the absence	 of	 any	 arguable	 issue	 of	 merit , and he notified	 the	 mot her 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 .		W e	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.	 § 400 5(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,	t he court	found the	 mother	 unfit	 based	 on	 all	 four	 g rounds	 of	 unfitness, see 22	 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) (i)

- (iv) ,	and	the evidence i s	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	 fo ster	 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	Huma n	Ser vices	did	not file	a	brief

Waterv ille	District	Court	docket	number	PC

- 2 018

- 3 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY