Opinion ID: 4540037
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶7] On appeal, the father contends that the record contains insufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that he failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children and therefore was unfit to parent the children. 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(iv). “We review the court’s findings of fact for clear error and the court’s ultimate determination that termination of the parental rights is in the child’s best interest for an abuse of discretion.” In re Olivia F., 2019 ME 149, ¶ 5, 217 A.3d 1106. “We will affirm an order terminating parental rights when a review of the entire record demonstrates that the trial court rationally could have found clear and convincing evidence in that record to support the necessary factual findings as to the bases for termination.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). “A court need find only one of four statutory grounds of parental unfitness to find that a parent is unfit to parent his or her child. Where the court finds multiple bases for unfitness, we will affirm if any one of the alternative bases is supported by clear and convincing 9 evidence.”3 Id. ¶ 6 (citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted); see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) (2020). “[T]he court must examine from the child’s perspective—not the parent’s—the time within which the parent can take responsibility for a child and protect that child from jeopardy.” In re Children of Tiyonie R., 2019 ME 34, ¶ 6, 203 A.3d 824. [¶8] Contrary to the father’s contentions, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the father is unfit. 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv). The father has been unsuccessful in reaching any of the goals established in the 2017 jeopardy order. He has not obtained permanent or safe housing for the children, and does not have any current plans to do so. He belatedly engaged with the SOATE process, but has refused to comply with the counselor’s recommendations for further testing. He has not completed a Batterer’s Intervention Program or otherwise availed himself of resources to address his domestic violence. The father’s violent threat against Department employees has rendered supervised visits with the children impossible, and the father has 3 The father does not argue on appeal that the trial court erred by finding that the father is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs, and that the father has been unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs. 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). Nevertheless, we have considered the record evidence underpinning each of the three alternative grounds, and conclude that the trial court did not err in finding the father unfit on any of the three grounds. See infra ¶¶ 8-9. 10 not had any contact with the children in nearly a year. These facts, supported by competent record evidence, suggest that the father is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy, and that those circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs, as well as that that the father has been unwilling to unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). [¶9] Competent record evidence also supports the trial court’s finding that the father failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children. 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(iv). The father has refused to fully comply with the recommendations of the counselors with whom he has engaged. He has only superficially engaged with services related to his domestic violence issues. Despite encouragement from his mother and from the Department, he has not taken steps to obtain independent housing suitable for his children. He has not taken responsibility for his actions or acknowledged his role in placing the children in jeopardy.
[¶10] The father also argues on appeal that the record contains insufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that termination was in the 11 children’s best interests. The father contends that, because the Department has not identified a permanent adoptive home for either of the two children, termination cannot, as a matter of law, be in their best interests. Contrary to his contention, the record is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination of his parental rights is in the children’s best interests, and the identification of adoptive homes is not a prerequisite to a finding that termination is in the children’s best interests. See In re Children of Meagan C., 2019 ME 129, ¶ 20, 214 A.3d 9. “We review the court’s ultimate conclusion regarding the best interest of the child for an abuse of discretion, viewing the facts, and the weight to be given [to] them, through the trial court’s lens.” In re Child of Carl D., 2019 ME 67, ¶ 5, 207 A.3d 1202 (quotation marks omitted). [¶11] The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that termination of the father’s parental rights would facilitate permanency and stability, and therefore be in the children’s best interests. “Permanency is a dynamic concept that must be fashioned from the actual circumstances and needs of the child or children before the court.” Id. ¶ 9 (quotation marks omitted). Here, both children have experienced significant instability throughout their short lives, with care provided by family members and a host of foster families. The older child, especially, has significant behavioral challenges and requires expert care 12 from caregivers who can devote their energy to his needs. The younger child has never lived with the father, and has never experienced stability in her life. Therefore, even absent identified adoptive placements for the children, the trial court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.