Opinion ID: 2445304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Parental Unfitness

Text: [¶ 29] The father finally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the District Court's finding that he is an unfit parent because he is unable to (1) protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs, and (2) take responsibility for them within that time. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii). He does not challenge the court's other required finding that termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interest. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a). We review the trial court's determination of parental unfitness to see if a review of the entire record demonstrates that the trial court rationally could have found clear and convincing evidence in that record to support the necessary factual findings as to the bases for termination. In re Marcus S., 2007 ME 24, ¶ 6, 916 A.2d at 227 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 30] The court made the following factual findings concerning the father's unfitness, which are supported by the record: 1. He participated in domestic violence involving the mother in the presence of the older children, and has learned little... regarding ... [the] effects of domestic violence. The children have been in counseling for many months, focusing on their turbulent past that they need to escape. 2. He failed to protect the children from the mother's physical abuse. 3. Although he participated in classes recommended by the Department and in meetings, he does not sufficiently understand the extent of the children's needs, the effect of past parental actions on the oldest children, or how to discipline and control them. He has learned little about proper parenting during two years of services. 4. He discounts the fear expressed by the two oldest children over the possibility of living with him in the home where they were previously abused, or the possibility of living with him at all; his plan is to put all five children back in the same home where awful memories began and see what develops. There is nothing to prevent the father from associating with the mother, who subjected some of the children to horrible, reprehensible, incredible abuse. 5. During almost forty supervised visits, he had ongoing difficulty in supervising the children and in setting appropriate boundaries for them. Little emotion was displayed in their interactions. He has not, despite multiple visits, been able to develop a loving relationship with these children and has not made at least the older girls feel safe. 6. His failure to protect the oldest four children from abuse places them at risk, as it is highly likely [he] does not understand his children's needs and has no plans to meet such needs. After two years, the oldest four have serious residual problems from their violent upbringing. 7. He has no real relationship with Thon, who was born after the mother moved to Maine. [¶ 31] At the time of the TPR hearing, the children had not lived with either parent for more than two years. See In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶ 33, 889 A.2d 297, 309 (stating, in discussing the importance of permanency for children, that [i]n the lives of pre-adolescent children... more than two years[] is an eternity). They are in therapeutic foster care; the youngest three in an adoptive home. Summarizing the children's status, the court found that [t]hey are generally happy, safe, and on the `right track' emotionally in their placements. The court found persuasive the findings and recommendations of the experienced guardian ad litem, who filed seven thorough reports with the court over a twenty-month time period as this case progressed. The guardian recommended termination of the father's parental rights, saying that it would be devastating and traumatic to the children to be returned to his custody. See In re Marcus S., 2007 ME 24, ¶ 7, 916 A.2d at 227 (noting trial court's reliance on guardian's report in making termination findings). [¶ 32] On whole, the trial court's finding that the father is an unfit parent is fully supported by this record. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.