Opinion ID: 2444239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Opportunity for a Termination of Parental Rights Hearing

Text: [¶ 17] It is well established law that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children, In re Robert S., 2009 ME 18, ¶ 13, 966 A.2d 894, 897-98, and that termination of parental rights may only be accomplished through fair procedures that are adequate to safeguard that right, In re Matthew W., 2006 ME 67, ¶ 7, 903 A.2d 333, 336; In re Randy Scott B., 511 A.2d 450, 452 (Me.1986). The procedures required prior to the termination of parental rights are notice of the issues, an opportunity to be heard, the right to introduce evidence and present witnesses, the right to respond to claims and evidence, and an impartial fact-finder. In re Robert S., 2009 ME 18, ¶ 14, 966 A.2d at 898 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 18] The mother asserts that the court's procedures deprived her of the opportunity for a hearing in violation of her due process rights. To determine whether the procedures followed in a termination of parental rights proceeding satisfy due process, we balance three factors: the importance of the individual's interest that will be affected by the state action, [2] the potential for error through the procedures used, and the magnitude of the state's interest. In re Randy Scott B., 511 A.2d at 452-53 (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). [¶ 19] Applying these factors to the instant case, we conclude that the procedures followed by the Probate Court satisfy due process. Although the mother's right to her child is a fundamental and important one, the court's acceptance of the evidentiary stipulation does not present a risk of an erroneous deprivation of her right. The parties were present in court and had the opportunity for a termination of parental rights hearing. The court's caution regarding the proposed consent was well placed, and the process employed was a thorough and appropriate response. [¶ 20] Moreover, when the mother's attorney stipulated that the court's judgment could be based on evidence from a hearing six months earlier involving the same parties, the mother acquiesced in the stipulation. During the prior hearing, the mother was represented. She testified, presented evidence, and cross-examined witnesses. That hearing dealt with essentially the same issues that were relevant to the termination of parental rights proceeding. After reviewing that evidence, the court made the factual findings necessary to terminate the mother's parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Matthew W., 2006 ME 67, ¶ 8, 903 A.2d at 336. Consequently, we discern no violation of the mother's due process rights in the court's consideration of the evidence from the prior proceeding upon her attorney's stipulation. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.