Opinion ID: 4514238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 2019 Child Protection Proceeding

Text: [¶14] On April 12, 2019, the Department filed separate amended petitions for child protection orders regarding the younger child and the older child.5 The petitions alleged that the children were subject to “emotional maltreatment” by the father as a result of his conduct and comments regarding the children’s habits, appearances, and relationships with their mothers, and that these actions resulted in diagnosed mental harm to each child. The Department originally filed the petitions on March 27, 2019, but amended both petitions 5 on April 12. 8 [¶15] As noted above, the court held a consolidated hearing on the petitions, as well as the pending motions, over five days between May 9, 2019, and July 9, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the court entered a jeopardy order as to each child, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that each child was in circumstances of jeopardy. In support of its determination that the children were in jeopardy, the court made the following findings of fact, which are supported by competent evidence in the record. The court found that the mother of each child had stopped her child from having contact with the father in August 2018 as a result of a report of alleged assaults by the father against a friend of the mothers.6 [¶16] With regard to the older child, the court found as follows: Based on not seeing his child . . . [the father] filed a Motion for Contempt in the Fall of 2018 and then a Motion to Modify [the 2007 parental rights and responsibilities order] on December 13, 2018. [After the court held the mother in contempt], [the father’s] contact . . . resumed and was supervised by [a friend of the father] for a few hours on Saturdays and Sundays. The court finds that [the friend of the father] is not an appropriate supervisor . . . [because the friend] does not appropriately intervene when [the father’s] conduct during visits needs to be addressed, redirected and corrected. . . . 6 The court stated that “whether there is jeopardy to the child, the court gives little weight to the fact allegations of this nature were made. The court never heard directly from the accuser and was not afforded any opportunity to assess the credibility of her or her claims.” The court “evaluate[d] whether there [was] jeopardy based on [the father’s] conduct and its effect on the child and not on unfounded allegations made by a person from whom the court has not heard.” 9 In February or March 2019, shortly after [the child’s] contact with [the father] resumed, [the current case was] opened by the Department, this time based on a referral from [the child’s] counselor . . . whom [the child] had been seeing since October 2018, for anxiety around visiting [the father]. That referral was made based on the child’s disclosure that [the father] had been making the child play on the trampoline without shoes and in the cold. In addition, [the counselor] had brought to the Department’s attention that since visits had resumed, [the child’s] anxiety had increased, [the child’s] speech had become more pressured, [the child] appeared to have a nervous tick and was threatening to run away. [The child] was also reporting at this time that [the] father focused on [the child’s] weight, what [the child] ate, how [the child’s hair was worn]. By early March, [the counselor] reported that [the child] was in crisis surrounding visits with [the] father. .... . . . [The father] has used kittens as bargaining tools and rewards for eating the way he wants the child to eat. He shames the child particularly around the types of food [the child] eats[,] . . . demeans [the child’s] family in an effort to teach [the child] lessons around healthy living, . . . [and] criticizes the child about [the child’s] appearance, [the child’s] lack of athletic ability (in comparison to [the younger child]), [the child’s] hair and . . . weight. He has tried to have others manipulate on his behalf, like [a friend of the father], with whom he arranged a one-hour meeting with [the child] in an effort to coax the child into testifying or speaking favorably about him. Such conduct . . . makes the child feel worthless. . . . [The child] does well in school and is articulate. [The child] lives with [the child’s] mother and [the mother’s] husband, whom [the child] refers to as “dad.” . . . [The child] struggles with [the] father’s manipulative behaviors which can be intimidating, demeaning and confusing and which have already plagued [the child] with a psychological disorder, adjustment disorder and anxiety. [The child] has been in therapy with [the counselor] 10 since October 2018. . . . [The child] is at risk of an eating disorder and further serious harm absent a protective order. Since the visits [the child] had [with the father] since January 2019, have had an adverse impact on [the child], and based on [the] counselor’s recommendations, those visits shall now cease. Family therapy is warranted and is in fact recommended by [the father’s] own therapist. [¶17] With regard to the younger child, the court found as follows: The Department was previously involved with the family in [2013], in which a . . . Jeopardy Order issued as to the father based on “parental conflict and, particularly, as to the father, based on the threat of emotional abuse.” . . . Ultimately [the child protection proceeding] concluded with the entry of an Order Amending Divorce Judgment on May 11, 2016. . . . Since [then], the parents have been governed by that Order Amending Divorce Judgment. . . . Although the Amended Divorce Judgment seemed to keep the peace for some time, in late 2017, the child’s [m]other began to notice the child exhibit some concerning behaviors. She noticed that the child had a “twitch” and complained of sickness before visits with the [f]ather. This behavior was also observed by the child’s school principal who around the same time noticed that the child seemed more anxious when [the father] was around, pulling away from his hugs and expressions of affection when retrieving [the child] at school or attending school functions. . . . .... . . . [T]he circumstances of jeopardy in this case do not differ terribly from those present in the prior DHHS matter. . . . [The father] has repeatedly tried to control what foods [the child] eats, and realizing he cannot fully control what [the child] eats while at [the] mother’s, he often tells [the child] not to listen to [the] mother. In an attempt to control [the child’s] eating habits while 11 not in his care, he has told [the child] “a birdie tells him what [the child] eats” and that certain food will make [the child] “fat like [the] mother.” He has shamed [the child] into not eating certain foods, which he then eats himself. He has made comments about [the child] getting fat, made comments about the length of [the child’s] hair and how [the child’s] mother parents. There have been occasions when he just appeared at a Walmart, a Walgreens and a McDonalds since August 2018, creating situations that have intimidated [the child] and caused [the child] to feel shame about eating. He has been “overly enthusiastic” at school events, brandishing a sign or poster at one event, the only parent to do so. He frequently refers to [the child] in public . . . [by] names that embarrass a child that age, and he does all without any regard whatsoever for the effect his conduct has on [the child]. . . . [The child] is sophisticated and an active, high performer, who does very well in school. [The child] is articulate and insightful [and] . . . is connected and comfortable with [the] mother and in that family unit. [The child] also loves [the] father but struggles with his behaviors which can be intimidating, manipulative and confusing and which have already plagued [the child] with an anxiety disorder for which [the child] has been in therapy since at least July 2018. [The child’s] therapist . . . made clear that [the child] is already at risk of significant harm and that unless [the father’s] behaviors change, [the child] will suffer a fear of interaction and lose self-efficacy. [The child] is already at risk of an eating disorder because [the child] wants to please [the] father. [The child’s] anxiety is real and at risk of worsening absent a protective order. [¶18] Based on these findings and its determination that the children were in jeopardy, the court ordered that the children be placed in the custody of their respective mothers. Regarding the older child, the court, as it did in the order modifying the 2007 parental rights order, prohibited contact 12 between the father and the child “unless therapeutically recommended,” and ordered that both the father and the child remain in counseling with their respective therapists. The court also required the Department to arrange “family therapy” for the father, mother, and child. Regarding the younger child, the court determined that the father’s contact was to take place, for a period of six weeks, under professional supervision for one weekend day for a period of two hours, and—as the court required in its order modifying the 2016 amended divorce judgment—that this contact may be extended “upon recommendation of the child’s therapist.” The court also required that the father and the child remain in counseling, and that the Department arrange family counseling for all parties. [¶19] The father timely appealed. See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2018); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).