MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 201 8 ME 137 Docket: Cum

- 18

- 104 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	TIFFANY	F.

PER	CURIAM [¶1] Tiffany	F.	appeals	from	a	judgment	of	the	District	Court	(Portland, Powers,	J .)	finding circumstances	of	jeopardy	to	her	newborn	child’s	health	and welfare pursuant	 to §	 4035(4

- A)	 (2017). She	 argues	 that	 the	 evidence	 was insufficient	to	support	the	trial	court’s	finding	of	jeopardy. Because	the	record evidence	supports	the	court’s	finding	and	determination	of	jeopardy,	w e	affirm the	judgment.
I.		BACKGROU ND [¶2 ] On	November	28,	2017,	after	 receiving	several	 reports	 regarding the	care	and	safety	of	the newborn child,	the	Department of	Health	and	Human
Services visited the	mother	and	child	in	the	hospital

. The	next	day,	concerned about the	 mother’s in ability	 to	 properly	 care	 for	 the	 child,	 particularly her failure	 to	properly	support the	newborn’s head and her noncomplian ce with medical	 advice and	 breastfeeding	 instructions, the	 Department	 facilitated	 a2 family	team	meeting	during	which	the	caseworker, the	mother,	and	a	maternal aunt	agreed	that	the	child	would	be	released	to	the	care	of the maternal	aunt upon	discharge	from	the	hospital. [¶3 ] The Department	 filed	 a	 petition	 for a child	 protection	 or der on January	 2,	 2018 , when	 the	 child	 was	 approximately	 five	 weeks	 old. See 22 M.R.S.	§	4032	(2017). The	petition	alleged	that	the	mother	was	unable	to	safely care	for	the	child, declined to	follow	the	medical	recommendations	of	hospital staff,	 repeatedly	 co

- slept	 with	 the	 chi ld	 in	 the	 hospital,	 and	 refused	 to supplement	the	child’s	feedings	with	formula	when the	newborn began	t o	lose weight	following	birth. On	February	8	and	9,	2018,	the	court	held	a	jeopardy hearing	and	made	oral	findings	that	the	child	was	in	circumstances of	jeopardy.
See 22	M.R.S.	§	4035(1)	(2017). On	February	13,	 the	court	( Powers, J. ) ,	after reaching	 findings	 of	 fact	 by	 a	 preponderance	 of	 the	 evidence,	 e ntered	 a jeopardy	order	granting	custody	to	the	Department. See 22	M.R.S.	§ 4035(2) (2017). The court	made	the	following	findings	of	fact,	which	are	supported	by competent	 record	 evidence. See In	 re	 Destiny T .,	 2009	 ME	 26,	 ¶ 14, 965 A.2d 872

. I t is	likely	that	[the	mother]	failed	to	support	the	child’s	head, attempted	 to	 co

- sleep	with	 her	 child,	 disregarded	 breast

- feeding instructions,	refused	recommended	shots	for	the	child,	refused	to supplement	 insufficient	 breast	 milk	 with	 formula

.	 .	 . . Sh e	 did3 independent	research	on	various	parenting	and	health	topics,	some of	 which	 apparently	 convinced	 her	 to	 act	 in	 opposition	 to recommended	medical	and	proper	parenting	advice	she	received in	 the	 hospital	 and	 thereafter. In	 some	 instances,	 she	 did event ually

.	.	. follow	recommended	procedures. Her	refusals	went beyond	 proper	 questioning	 and	 became	 obstructive	 and potentially	harmful	to	the	vulnerable	newborn.

.	.	.	.

.	 .	 . [The	 mother] has	 sadly	 experienced	 traumatic	 brain injury	 in	 2004	 from	 a	 ca r	 accident,	 which	 still	 ca u sed	 residual impairments	 involving	 attention,	 memory,	 and	 otherwise	 per	 a 2009	neuropsychological	evaluation.

.	.	.	. The	jeopardy	is	summarized	as	the	mother’s	ongoing	failure to	 accept	 medical	 and	 parenting	 advice	 regar ding	 her	 newborn [child] ,	coupled	with	unsafe	decision

- making	involving	her [child] which	placed [the	child] at	risk	with	a	threat	of	serious	harm	and dep r ivation	of	proper	health	care.

.	.	.	.

.	.	. The	mother	needs	services	and	support	before	she	is	able to	care	safely	for	[the	child]	independently. [¶4 ]		Based	on	these	findings,	the	court	found ,	by	a	preponderance	of	the evidence, circumstances	of	jeopardy	to the	child’ s hea lth	and	welfare

. See 22 M.R.S.	§ § 4002(6)(A)

- (B),	4035(2)	(2017). The	mother	appeals. See 22	M.R.S. §	4006

.4 II.		DISCUSSION [¶5 ]		The	mother	challenges	 the	sufficiency	of	 the	evidence	supporting the	jeopardy	finding. We	review	the	District	Court’s	findings	of	fact	for clear

error ;	 those	 findings	 will	 be	 upheld	 unless	 “there	 is	 no	 competent	 record evidence	that	can	rationally	be	understood	to	establish	as	more	likely	than	not that	the	child	was	in	circumstances	of	jeopardy	to	his	health	and	welfare

. ” In	re
M.E. ,	2014	ME 98,	¶	16,	97	A.3d	1082 (quotation marks and	citations	omitted).
Contr ary	 to	 the	mother’s	contentions ,	 the	court’s	 findings	as to	 the	mother’s inability	to	adequately	care	for	the	child	and to make	safe	decisions	with	regard to	 necessary	 health	 care are	 f ully	 supported	 by	 competent	 evidence	 in	 the record

. Therefore,	we	conclude	that	the	District	Court	did	not	err	in	finding	that the	child	was	in	circumstances	of	jeopardy

. See 22	M.R.S.	§ §	4002(6)(A)

- (B), 4035(2); In	re	M.E. ,	2014	ME	98,	¶ 16,	97	A.3d 1082. The	entry	is: Judgment affirmed.

Caitlin	Ross	Wahrer,	Esq.,	Chester	&	Vestal,	P.A.,	Portland,	for	appellant	Mother Janet	T.	Mills,	Attorney	General,	and	Meghan	Szylvian,	Asst.	Atty.	Gen.,	Office	of the	Attorney	General,	Aug usta,	for	appellee	State	of	Maine
Portland	District	Court	docket	number	PC

- 2018

- 1 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY