MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 2018 ME 64 Docket: Pen

- 17

- 520 Submitted

On	Briefs : April	25 ,	2018 Decided: May	8,	2018
Pane l: SAUFLEY,	C.J.,	and ALEXANDER,	MEAD,	GORMAN,	JABAR, HJELM, and	HUMPHREY,	JJ.

IN	RE CHILD REN	OF TASHA	R.

PER	CURIAM [ ¶1] Tasha	 R

. appeals from	 a	 judgment	 of	 the	 District Court ( Bangor , Jordan ,	 J. )	 terminating her parental	 rights to two	 of	 her child ren pursuant	to 22 M.R.S.	§ 4055 (1)(A)(1)(a)	and	(B)(2)(a),	(b)(i)

- (ii) , (iv ) (2017 ). Contrary	 to the	mother’s	contention,	 the	court	did	not	abuse	its	discretion	in proceeding	 with	 the	 termination	 hearing	 notwithstanding	 h er	 request	 to replace	her	court

- appointed	counsel. T he	mother	does	not	challenge	the	court’s findings	 by	 clear	 and	 convincing	 evide nce	 of	 parental	 unfitness	 and	 that
termination	is	i n	the	children’s	best	interests

. See In	re	Zarianna	C. ,	2018	ME 11, ¶ 2,	177	A.3d	1270 ; In re Alexavier G. ,	2017	ME	227,	¶	1 & n.1,	174	A.3d	891 ( stating that	when	 the	 trial	court	 found	 three	bases for parental	unfitness ,	 a single	undisputed	basis “constitutes	a	waiver	of	this	issue	on	appeal” and “alone is	 sufficient	 to	 support	 the	 court’s	 termination	 of	 her	 parental	 rights ”).
A ccordingly, we	affirm	the	judgment.2 [¶2 ] The	mother	failed	to	appear	for	the	September	26,	2017,	hearing	on
the Department	 of	 Health	 and	 Human Services’ petition	 to	 terminate	 her parental	rights. Her	court

- appointed	counsel	was	present	and	represented	her
interests. Earlier,	 o n	 September	 15, ac ting	 pro	 se,	 the	 mother filed	 two
handwritten letters	with	 the	court raising numerous	issues .		Relevant	 to	 the
sole issue	she	raises	on	appeal, in	one	of	the	letters the	mother	alleged	that	her attorney had failed	to	adequately	communicate	with	and otherwise	represent her,	and	she	named	another	attorney	that	she	wished	to	have	appointed	to	her

case. 1 Upon finding that	“I don’t	t ake	anything	from	[the	letters]	.	.	. [t] hey’re allegations .	.	.	[and	the	mother]	is	not	here	today,”	and	without	objectio n	from any	party,	the	court	proceeded	with	the evidentiary	hearing ,	in	which	the	State, the	mother’s	counsel,	and	the	guardian	ad	litem	participated

. [¶3 ] Although	the	mother	has	a	due	process	right	to	appointed	counsel in	this	child	protection	proceedin g, In	re	T.B. ,	2013	ME	49,	¶	14, 65	A.3d	1282, “the	right	to	counsel	does	not	include	unfettered	freedom	to	change	attorneys,”
State	 v.	 Goodno ,	 511	 A.2d	 456,	 457	 (Me.	 1986).	 	We	 review	 the	 trial	 court’s
decision on	a	motion	to	change	cou nsel	for	an	abuse	o f	discretion

. In re J.R. Jr. ,

1 In	addition	to representing	the	absent mother at the hearing, counsel	filed	a	notice	of	appeal and appellant’s	brief on	her	behalf .		There	is	no	indication	in	the	record	that	the prospective substitute attorney	named	in	the	mother’s	letter	was	even	aware	of	her	request.3 2013	 ME	 58,	 ¶	 19,	 69	 A.3 d	 406; see In re Evelyn A. ,	 2017	 ME	 182,	 ¶	 19,
169 A.3d 914	(“ Althou gh	we	recognize	 the	 trial	court’ s goal	of	protecting	 the parents’ fundamental	right	to	effective	assistance	of	counsel , the	court must	be careful,	in	pro tecting	that	right,	not to	ignore	the	simultaneous	inte rest	of	the State	in	promoting	‘ the	early	e stablishment	of	permanent	plans for	the	children,
22 M.R.S.	 §	 4003(4) [2017]. ’ ” (citation	 omitted) ). O n	 these	 facts	 we	 find	 no

a buse	 o f	 discretion	 in	 the	 court’ s decision	 to	 proceed with	 the	 termination hearing

. The	entry	is: Judgment affirmed

.

Randy	G.	Day,	Esq.,	Garland,	for	appellant	mother Janet	T.	Mills,	Attorney	General , and	Meghan	Szylvian,	Asst.	Atty.	Gen.,	Office	of the	Attorney	General,	Augusta,	for	appellee Departmen t	of	Health	and	Human Services

Bangor	District	Court	docket	numbers	PC

- 2016

- 74,	75 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY