Opinion ID: 2165000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Parent is Unable to Protect the Child From Jeopardy

Text: The critical issue before the trial court was the ongoing relationship between Mary C. and Lance W., who had been the subject of several child protection orders at the time of the termination hearing, including allegations involving his biological children. [1] Despite allegations of physical and sexual abuse of Serena by Lance and warnings from the Department of Human Services that contact with Lance compromised the safety of her children, Mary married Lance in May 1991. Although they divorced a year later, Lance and Mary continued their relationship. In December 1992, Serena confronted Mary about the abuse she had suffered at the hands of Lance. Mary acknowledged that she believed Serena's allegations. This acknowledgement did not lead Mary to sever her relationship with Lance. In February 1993, Mary arranged to have Lance stay in her apartment while she was at work to protect against vandalism. Lance maintained an apartment in Mary's apartment building after the divorce. A week before the termination hearing Mary and Lance were seen together by an officer of the Bucksport police department at Mary's place of employment. The court can terminate parental rights on the basis of a finding that the parent is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i). Jeopardy is defined as serious abuse or neglect, as evidenced by [s]erious harm or threat of serious harm. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4002(6)(A) (1992). The evidence clearly demonstrates Mary's unwillingness to protect the children from the risk Lance posed. The court had an ample basis for concluding that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs. That Lance had not been held criminally accountable for the alleged sexual abuse was irrelevant on the issue of jeopardy. The trial court was entitled to rely on the uncorroborated hearsay statements of Serena, admitted in evidence through the testimony of the social worker, as a basis for concluding Lance placed both Serena and Ethan at risk. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4007 (1992) permits the court to admit and consider statements made by the child, and may rely on that evidence to the extent of its probative value. The trial court had broad discretion in determining the weight to accord Serena's statement. See In re Ryan M., 513 A.2d 837, 840-41 (Me.1986) (inconsistencies in the child's testimony go to their probative value, and the trial court's assessment is entitled to great deference).