Opinion ID: 4542358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I. was in his mother’s custody.

Text: 2 [¶3] On September 6, 2019, the juvenile court (Portland, Powers, J.) issued an order finding that A.I. was not competent to stand trial in his then-pending juvenile matters and concluding that there was no substantial probability that A.I. would regain competence in the near future. [¶4] Pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 3318-B (2020), the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on September 24, 2019. The court took judicial notice of the guardian ad litem’s report, which recommended against placing A.I. in the custody of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. The court then heard from the Department’s Children’s Behavior Health Program Coordinator, who testified that A.I.’s challenges required residential care, but that his mother did not intend to continue having him placed in a residential treatment facility. The court additionally heard from a Juvenile Community Corrections Officer who had worked with A.I. since 2016. The officer testified that A.I. had several case management referrals, all of which were closed because his mother could not be reached or failed to engage with the Department. The witnesses agreed that A.I.’s mother struggles to understand the severity of his behaviors. [¶5] The court then heard testimony from A.I.’s mother. She explained that she would be leaving Maine in December and planned to take A.I. with her. 3 The court asked the mother, “You would take your son out of the [residential] program at the end of December because you have to move even if he needs more services there?” She responded, “Yeah, that’s my plan. And you are the judge.”1 [¶6] The court then heard testimony from the guardian ad litem, who stated, “I came to court prepared to recommend what I recommended in my report . . . . I’m concerned though about whether [the] mother would actually keep [A.I.] in his residential program . . . . So reluctantly, I think a safer course of action, although it’s difficult, would be to place [A.I.] in State custody.” [¶7] The court announced that it would issue a written order and explained that it is “contrary to the welfare of the child for him to stay in his mother’s custody currently. DHHS, over time, has made reasonable efforts to try to prevent removal of him from the home . . . . I’m placing [A.I.] in DHHS custody as of now.” [¶8] Following the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court issued an order placing A.I. in the Department’s custody and dismissed all twelve pending juvenile complaints against A.I. The court applied a preponderance of the 1 The mother explained, however, that if the court placed A.I. in Department custody, she would not move in December. 4 evidence standard to the Department’s petition for custody of A.I. The court explained that the September 24, 2019, hearing presented it with three options. “It could take no action, it could order DHHS to evaluate the juvenile for mental health and behavioral services, or it could order the juvenile into DHHS custody under 15 M.R.S. § 3314(1)(C-1) [(2020)].” A.I.’s mother, the court expounded, “generally could not control him, and he often refused to obey the rules.” The court determined that placing A.I. in the Department’s custody represented the best way “to ensure that he is properly evaluated, treated, and monitored regarding his behavioral and mental health needs.” The court added, “His mother is still free to see and communicate with him, but she will not be making legal and significant parental decisions until there is a custody change.” [¶9] A.I.’s mother timely appealed on October 25, 2019. See 15 M.R.S §§ 3402(1)(B), 3405 (2020); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).