Opinion ID: 2183151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the failure to assign separate attorneys to the parents at the early stages of the child protection proceeding

Text: [¶ 24] Mohamed and Shamso assert that their due process rights were violated because the District Court failed to assign separate counsel to them at the inception of the child protection proceedings in 1996. [5] They now claim that there was a conflict of interest between them and that the court should have recognized the conflict and ordered individual representation. [6] The record does not reflect a request for separate counsel until September 1997, when the attorney originally assigned to represent Shamso and Mohamed moved to withdraw from representation. The motion was granted, and Shamso and Mohamed were each appointed an attorney. [¶ 25] Mohamed and Shamso have been represented by their separate attorneys since September 1997, more than one full year before the termination hearing. Because the parents have not demonstrated that they had a conflict of interest at a time when they were both represented by the same attorney, we do not need to determine whether and when separate counsel should have been appointed. The appointment of separate counsel when first requested and the representation by separate counsel at the termination hearing ameliorates any deficiency that might have resulted from the appointment of only one attorney to represent them at the jeopardy proceeding. At the termination hearing the parties could have raised any issue that resulted from their lack of separate counsel. In fact, they did not raise, at the termination hearing, the issue of lack of separate counsel. [¶ 26] The parents point to In re Christopher C., 499 A.2d 163 (Me.1985), in which we held the failure of the court to appoint counsel for a mother for the preliminary protection hearing required vacation of the final child protection order. The mother and father were separated, contemplating divorce, and the father was seeking custody of the children. Id. at 164. Their interests were adverse to one another. The trial court had not allowed the mother to examine witnesses at the preliminary hearing. Id. Some of the witnesses who testified at the preliminary hearing were not reexamined at the final hearing and only asked to swear that their previous testimony was true. Id. Therefore, while the mother had an attorney at the final child protection hearing, the attorney was unable to fully represent her. Id. at 164-65. The attorney, although agreeing to let the court consider the evidence presented at the earlier hearing, had not even heard that evidence. Id. [¶ 27] In contrast, at the termination hearing regarding Mohamed and Shamso's parental rights, the court did not rely upon evidence taken at prior hearings. Evidence was fully presented on Kafia's injuries, the removal from her home, the trial placement, the additional injuries, the numerous services provided to the family, the medical and psychological data, and the current situation of Kafia, in addition to the numerous witnesses presented by the parents as to their standing in the community, their characters and reputations, their ability to parent, and the observations of neighbors and friends. [¶ 28] Furthermore, Mohamed and Shamso have failed to demonstrate any prejudice that resulted to either of them by being represented for a time by the same attorney. In his brief, Mohamed argues that if he had had his own attorney before DHS petitioned for termination of his parental rights, he could have sought to obtain custody of Kafia. The fact is he had his own attorney for several months before the petition for termination was filed. The lack of separate counsel at the jeopardy stage of the child protection proceedings did not result in a denial of due process to them in the termination phase of the case. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.