Opinion ID: 4216303
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶2] The court found that, despite the parents having made marginal progress toward reunification, they have failed to take responsibility for their son; they are unwilling or unable to protect him from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs; they have failed to make a good faith 2 effort toward reunification; and termination of their parental rights is in the child’s best interest.1 See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv); In re Alana S., 2002 ME 126, ¶¶ 13, 21-23, 802 A.2d 976. After over a year, the parents’ minimal progress toward reunification was totally inadequate to address the jeopardy facing the child were he to return to their care. The court based this determination on the following findings of fact: [The father] has a history of violence and mental health concerns that present a risk to his son. . . . There are concerns about sexually deviant behavior over a period of years by [the father]. [The father’s] continued substance abuse presents a risk of harm to his child. . . . . [The father] has been very inconsistent in visiting his child [and] has missed visits for reasons the court finds utterly inadequate justification for missing visits. . . . [The majority of the father’s] intellectual abilities were in the borderline range [and] make it likely that [he] is likely to need significant support in order to meet a child’s daily living needs. . . . . [The father] has also failed to attend random drug screenings, failed to engage in mental health counseling, failed to consult with a psychiatrist. . . . All the while he has maintained an attitude that there is nothing about him that needs fixing or changing. 1 At the time of the termination hearing, the child had been in foster care for over a year. 3 [The mother] has ongoing mental health issues that pose a risk to her consistent parenting of the baby. [She] has a history of low intellectual functioning that has impaired her parenting of older children and presents a risk for this baby. . . . [She] consented to [a] petition to terminate her rights regarding [her older son] . . . . . . . [The mother] went along while [the father] stayed in the house night after night in violation of the [initial] safety plan. She stuck with him as he called out of visits with the child and blew off his counseling. . . . She has consistently chosen [the father] over the child. [The mother] has also failed, independently of [the father], to make progress necessary to alleviate jeopardy and take responsibility for the child. She failed to complete drug screens. She failed to be in individual counseling for much of the duration of the case.