Opinion ID: 4513061
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reunification and Rehabilitation Services

Text: [¶7] The mother further contends that the court erred in finding that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify and rehabilitate her family. See 22 M.R.S. § 4041(1-A)(A)(3). [¶8] “The Department’s compliance with its rehabilitation and reunification duties as outlined in section 4041 does not constitute a discrete element requiring proof in termination proceedings, nor does the failure of the Department to comply with section 4041 preclude findings of parental 6 unfitness.” In re Doris G., 2006 ME 142, ¶ 17, 912 A.2d 572. “Instead, the court should consider the lack of reunification efforts as one of many factors in evaluating the parent’s fitness.” In re Daniel H., 2017 ME 89, ¶ 15, 160 A.3d 1182. [¶9] Here, the court specifically found that the mother failed to consistently attend different types of programming provided by the Department such as drug therapy, mental health counseling, and parenting classes. The court also found that when one type of substance use treatment was unsuccessful, the mother was offered individualized treatment, which she also did not consistently attend. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Department failed to “[m]ake good faith efforts to cooperate with the parent in the pursuit of the plan.” 22 M.R.S. § 4041(1-A)(A)(3). The entry is: Judgment affirmed. David Paris, Esq., Bath, for appellant Mother Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services Augusta District Court docket number PC-2018-3 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY