Opinion ID: 4533602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unfitness Findings

Text: [¶7] Notwithstanding both parents’ attempts to characterize their arguments as issues of due process and equal protection, they actually challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s findings of parental unfitness pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b).1 “We review the court’s factual findings of parental unfitness . . . for clear error . . . .” In re Child of Christine M., 2018 ME 133, ¶ 6, 194 A.3d 390. “When the burden of proof at trial is clear and convincing evidence, our review is to determine whether the fact-finder could reasonably have been persuaded that the required findings were proved to be highly probable.” In re M.B., 2013 ME 46, ¶ 37, 65 A.3d 1260 (quotation marks omitted). [¶8] Contrary to the parents’ contentions, the court’s thorough factual findings are amply supported by the evidence. On this record, it was entirely reasonable for the court to credit the mental health evaluator’s statements that the mother’s “responses to the current child protective case [were] laden with 1We reject the parents’ suggestions that the court improperly adopted the mental health evaluator’s conclusions and thereby violated their due process rights. The court’s written decision evinces a thorough and rigorous application of its independent judgment to the entire body of evidence before it; indeed, the court went so far as to distinguish pointedly between the evaluator’s statements and the court’s own factual conclusions after hearing the parents’ testimony. See In re Marpheen C., 2002 ME 170, ¶¶ 5-7, 812 A.2d 972. 6 deflection and distortion of facts as to the circumstances of . . . neglect and lack of supervision” and that the father “does not acknowledge [that he or the mother have] failed to protect or supervise their children safely” and “abdicates his parental responsibilities to [the mother or the] older children.” It was similarly reasonable for the court to reject the parents’ counselor’s competing suggestion that, in the court’s words, “the biggest problem the parents grappled with was not having [the] children in their care.” The court also had before it the guardian ad litem’s (GAL) testimony and several reports, which included statements that the parents “still do not seem to recognize that their actions have resulted in extreme hardship for their children,” and it heard testimony from the GAL in a previous child protective proceeding in Illinois regarding the parents’ chronic inability or unwillingness to make changes to provide the children with a safe environment. [¶9] In sum, the court did not err in finding the mother and father unfit. See In re Child of Christine M., 2018 ME 133, ¶ 6, 194 A.3d 390; In re M.B., 2013 ME 46, ¶ 37, 65 A.3d 1260.