Opinion ID: 3193072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Lack of Consistent Participation

Text: [¶14] Pursuant to 18-A M.R.S. § 5-204(d), a Probate Court may appoint a guardian for a child if the petitioner establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that “there is a de facto guardian and a demonstrated lack of consistent participation by the nonconsenting parent,” and that the appointment of the de facto guardian is in the child’s best interest.4 See Guardianship of Chamberlain, 2015 ME 76, ¶ 33, 118 A.3d 229 (interpreting section 5-204(d) to require proof by clear and convincing evidence). 4 The text of section 18-A M.R.S. § 5-204(d) provides in relevant part: The court may appoint a guardian . . . for an unmarried minor if . . . [the parents or the legal custodian of the minor] do not consent, but the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a de facto guardian and a demonstrated lack of consistent participation by the nonconsenting parent or legal custodian of the unmarried minor. The court may appoint the de facto guardian as guardian if the appointment is in the best interest of the child. 9 [¶15] Title 18-A M.R.S. § 5-101(1-C) defines “[d]emonstrated lack of consistent participation” as a refusal or failure to comply with the duties imposed upon a parent by the parent-child relationship, including but not limited to providing the child necessary food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, a nurturing and consistent relationship and other care and control necessary for the child’s physical, mental and emotional health and development. The statute further requires that the court consider “at least the following factors” in determining whether a petitioner has shown that a parent has demonstrated a lack of consistent participation: (a) The intent of the parent . . . in placing the child with the person petitioning as a de facto guardian; (b) The amount of involvement the parent . . . had with the child during the parent’s . . . absence; (c) The facts and circumstances of the parent’s . . . absence; (d) The parent’s . . . refusal to comply with conditions for retaining custody set forth in any previous court orders; and (e) Whether the nonconsenting parent . . . was previously prevented from participating in the child’s life as a result of domestic violence or child abuse or neglect. 18-A M.R.S. § 5-101(1-C). [¶16] Section 5-101(1-C) thus mandates the court’s consideration of at least five specific criteria in a proceeding for guardianship pursuant to section 5-204(d). The father asserts that these statutory factors establish that a lack of consistent 10 participation can be demonstrated only during periods when the child’s parent is physically “absent.” We disagree. [¶17] The criteria in subsection 1-C constitute a nonexhaustive framework for the court’s analysis of the evidence in a particular proceeding. The factors must be considered at a minimum, but do not establish a definitive test for application of the demonstrated lack of consistent participation element. The criteria are instead itemized considerations that, if relevant in a given case, inform the ultimate determination of whether the nonconsenting parent refused or failed to comply with the duties imposed upon the parent by the parent-child relationship. [¶18] As defined by the Legislature, parental duties include, but are not limited to, “providing the child necessary food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, a nurturing and consistent relationship and other care and control necessary for the child’s physical, mental and emotional health and development.” 18-A M.R.S. § 5-101(1-C). Providing for a child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs is a multifaceted responsibility that necessarily requires some degree of active, hands-on involvement in the child’s life. See Pitts v. Moore, 2014 ME 59, ¶ 28, 90 A.3d 1169 (distinguishing between “parenting functions” that benefit but do not necessarily involve direct contact with a child and “caretaking functions” that involve direct participation in a child’s daily care, in discussing the elements of de facto parenthood). To read section 5-101(1-C) as the 11 father recommends would render superfluous the list of active parental functions that the Legislature apparently considered when contemplating the obligations that bind a parent to his child. Based on the plain language of the statute, we conclude that a lack of consistent participation is demonstrated by a parent’s failure or refusal to meet his parental obligations. Although such neglect may be shown by a parent’s physical absence, it is not necessarily restricted to that circumstance.