Opinion ID: 4347894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Child’s Best Interest

Text: [¶8] The father alternatively argues that even if the court did not err by determining that he was unfit as a parent, it should have ordered a permanency guardianship rather than termination of his parental rights. We review the court’s determination regarding the appropriateness of a permanency guardianship for an abuse of discretion. See In re Haylie W., 2017 ME 157, ¶ 4, 167 A.3d 576; In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18, ¶ 11, 154 A.3d 1199; In re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159, ¶ 27, 809 A.2d 1245 (“The [court’s] judgment on the issue of best interest is entitled to substantial deference because that court is able to directly evaluate the testimony of the witnesses.”). [¶9] Once a court determines that a parent is unfit, it must also determine whether termination of that parent’s parental rights is in the child’s best 7 interest. 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) (2017); In re Scott S., 2001 ME 114, ¶ 19, 775 A.2d 1144. As an alternative to termination, a court may create a permanency guardianship as part of a permanency plan “to establish safe, long-term care for a child who is the subject of a child protection proceeding.” In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18, ¶ 12, 154 A.3d 1199; see 22 M.R.S. § 4038-C (2017). When appropriate, “a permanency guardianship allows parents whose child[] cannot be returned to them to have a meaningful opportunity to maintain a legal relationship with their child[], and to have the court determine their rights to have contact with their child[].” In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18, ¶ 12, 154 A.3d 1199. [¶10] Here, the court expressly considered the option of a permanency guardianship upon the request of the father, but determined that it was not in the child’s best interest because of substantial strain in the relationship between the father and the maternal grandparents. See id. ¶ 13 (stating that tensions between a foster parent and the parents was an appropriate factor for the court to consider in denying a request for a permanency guardianship). The child has been in the grandparents’ care for almost her entire life, and the creation of a permanency guardianship would leave the shadow of future legal proceedings at a time when the child needs a stable, permanent home. See 8 22 M.R.S. §§ 4003(4), 4050(2)-(3), 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) (2017); In re Haylie W., 2017 ME 157, ¶ 4, 167 A.3d 576. Accordingly, the court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating the father’s parental rights. See In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. Robert Van Horn, Esq., Van Horn Law Office, Ellsworth, for appellant father Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services Ellsworth District Court docket number PC-2016-16 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY