Opinion ID: 2557398
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of a Jeopardy Finding on the Best Interest of the Child Determination

Text: [¶ 11] The father also contends that because of the finding of jeopardy against the mother, the court abused its discretion in determining that Alivia's best interest was served by primary residence with her. [¶ 12] We review a court's ultimate conclusion regarding the best interest of the child for abuse of discretion, viewing the facts, and the weight to be given them, through the trial court's lens. In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297, 301-02; see also In re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159, ¶ 27, 809 A.2d 1245, 1253. The judgment of the trial court is entitled to very substantial deference because the court is able to appraise all the testimony of the parties and their experts. In re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159, ¶ 27, 809 A.2d at 1253 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 13] In its order, the court acknowledged the jeopardy finding but determined that the parental rights and responsibility order protected the child from jeopardy. It specifically acknowledged the ongoing risk associated with the mother's newfound sobriety and the need for the Department's continued assistance in stabilizing the household. The court's findings, supported by competent evidence in the record, reflect that it carefully considered the mother's present ability to provide Alivia with stability and continuity, the father's unwillingness to foster Alivia's relationship with the mother, and the other factors bearing on Alivia's best interest. See 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)(A)-(R). [4] The court acted well within its discretion. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.