Opinion ID: 4470839
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶11] The father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underpinning the trial court’s findings that he was unfit and that termination would be in the children’s best interests. Contrary to his contentions, the record evidence is such that the trial court “could reasonably have been persuaded that the required findings were proved to be highly probable.” Id. ¶ 33. The court did 8 not err in reaching its findings, nor did it abuse its discretion in its decision to terminate the father’s parental rights. Adoption of Shayleigh S., 2018 ME 165, ¶ 14, 198 A.3d 791; Adoption of Isabelle T., 2017 ME 220, ¶ 30, 175 A.3d 639.
[¶12] Record evidence demonstrates that the father’s efforts to maintain contact with his two children have been sporadic and ineffective. Prior to 2016, he had regular contact with the children and took advantage of his contact rights. After March 2016, he had virtually no in-person contact with the children and any phone contact was short and intermittent. After June 2018, he had no direct contact with the children. His efforts to maintain contact were limited to contacting the mother. What little indirect contact did occur was a product of the efforts of the paternal grandparents. The father moved to Florida in December 2016, to seek employment and work on his sobriety, staying for nearly two years. [¶13] The mother imposed roadblocks to the father contacting the children, severely curtailing the father’s contact after he was arrested in March 2016. She also moved to a new address in October 2017, and changed her phone number in June 2018. The trial court acknowledged the wrongfulness of this conduct and took it into consideration in its orders. 9 However, the father’s record of minimal contact with the children predated the imposition of these roadblocks. By mid-2015, his contact with the children had declined to, at most, one overnight visit per weekend. Further, after the mother cut off his contact, the father did not attempt to enforce his rights through the judicial system or otherwise try to pursue contact. He did not contact the maternal grandparents, the children’s schools or medical providers, or the stepfather. [¶14] The court found that both children will need special care and attention for the rest of their lives, and the record demonstrates that their disabilities render change, uncertainty, and transition extremely difficult for both children. The trial court reasonably could have been persuaded that it was highly probable the father was either unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children in a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. 2. Finding Regarding the Children’s Best Interest [¶15] The significant special needs of the children are also relevant to the court’s second core finding—that termination of the father’s parental rights would be in the children’s best interests. 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a). The best interest factors considered in a Title 18-A proceeding are the same as those in a Title 22 proceeding: 10 In considering the children’s best interests, the court is required to consider the needs of the children, including the children’s age, the children’s attachments to relevant persons, periods of attachments and separation, the children’s ability to integrate into a substitute placement or back into their parent’s home and the children’s physical and emotional needs. Also relevant to the best interests determination is the harm the children may suffer if the parent’s rights are not terminated, as well as the children’s need for permanence and stability. Adoption of Isabelle T., 2017 ME 220, ¶ 49, 175 A.3d 639 (quotation marks omitted) (alterations omitted). [¶16] The trial court considered the needs of each child, their respective ages and relationships with their parents and step-father, the time spent with the parties, and their ability to integrate into the mother and stepfather’s home. The record evidence shows that both children, and the younger child especially, require consistency, routine, and predictability in order to function well in the home and in school. Strong coordination among the caregivers, educators, and medical providers is necessary in order for the children to coexist with their family members and peers, and to progress toward their social and educational goals. The evidence shows that the father has not contributed to those coordinated efforts, but that the stepfather has. The evidence further shows that sporadic contact with the father interferes with the children’s routine and progress. With regard to the younger child, changes to routine correlate with 11 increased aggressive behaviors. In light of the evidence presented at trial, the trial court could reasonably have been persuaded that the required findings were proved to be highly probable, and thus did not clearly err in determining termination to be in the best interest of each child. [¶17] Because the trial court did not clearly err in its determinations that the father has been unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the two children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs and that termination was in the best interest of each child, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the father’s parental rights.