Court Opinion

ID: 9746753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:35:55.764209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:16.500251
License: Public Domain

GLASSMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent.1 In the first instance the custody of the children was placed with the Department because of Gail’s inability to protect them from jeopardy as defined by 22 M.R.S.A. § 4002(6)(B) (Supp.1987). The uncontroverted testimony of the State’s witnesses is that, after the State took custody of Amanda and Eric, the children while with Gail were provided with adequate, nutritious meals and appropriate seasonal clothing, and were generally clean. The court focuses on the three incidents2 contained in the record as the supporting evidence for the trial court’s determination that, because of Gail’s lack of supervision of the children while in her temporary custody, she was “unwilling or unable to protect [Amanda and Eric] from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the [children’s] needs.” 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(b)(i).
I cannot agree that these incidents comprise jeopardy3 on which the irrevocable termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child can be based. Common experience dictates recognition of the fact that in the course of rearing a child there is not a constant of meticulously careful supervision of the child’s activities by the person having physical custody of the child. Further, common experience also dictates that isolated incidents of lapses in such supervision do not equate with jeopardy of such a degree as to form the basis for permanent deprivation of a mother’s rights of care and *1136custody of her child. This becomes self-evident from the record of this case. The trial court had before it uneontradieted testimony that while in the foster home selected by the Department Amanda received facial injuries inflicted by a bite from a dog owned by the foster family and both Eric and Amanda, on different occasions, were seriously burned from hot coffee. It seems a fair conclusion, there being no evidence to the contrary, that a probable contributing cause to these injuries was a lapse in the supervision of the children.
Nor can I agree with the court that there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to determine it was highly probable that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of both Amanda and Eric. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(2) (Supp.1987)4 sets forth those factors that the court shall consider in determining whether to terminate parental rights to a child, with no indication but that these factors should be given equal weight in arriving at that determination.
Although the court in its opinion relies heavily on the desirability that the children be permanently placed, there is no evidence in the record of any such plan for the children. There is no evidence that the children had any emotional attachment to any person other than their mother, that the children would be able to integrate into a substitute placement, or of the emotional needs of the children. There is the testimony of the court-appointed psychologist, the Department caseworkers, and a neighbor to Gail, all of whom had observed the interaction of Gail and her children, of the bond of affection and attachment between the children and their mother. Certainly, in considering “the needs of the children,” pursuant to section 4055(2), the State should be required to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the consequence to the children of permanently removing from their lives the sole person with whom they are emotionally bonded will not be as severe as allowing the status quo to be maintained.
Accepting all the assumed findings of the trial court on which this court relies, I conclude that the requirements for termination of parental rights have not been met. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii) (Supp.1987). Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment.

. I join with the court in emphasizing the desirability of having detailed findings of facts in parental termination cases. It would seem the parties would prefer that this court’s review for clear error by the trial court be based on the actual findings of that court rather than the "assumed” findings.

. In regard to the incident recited in the court’s opinion of Eric “banging a metal knife on a charged electrical appliance," the record reveals that a Department caseworker testified that Eric was once found in his room banging a butter knife on a radio or clock radio.

. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4002(6)(B) (Supp.1977), as applicable to the instant case, defines jeopardy as “serious abuse or neglect, as evidenced by: Deprivation of ... supervision or care ... when that deprivation causes a threat of serious harm." Serious harm is defined in section 4002(10) as:
A. Serious injury;
B. Serious mental or emotional injury or impairment which now or in the future is likely to be evidenced by serious mental, behavioral or personality disorder, including severe anxiety, depression or withdrawal, untoward aggressive behavior, seriously delayed development or similar serious dysfunctional behavior; or
C. Sexual abuse or exploitation.

. Section 4055(2) provides:
In deciding to terminate, the Court shall consider the needs of the child, including the child’s age, the child’s attachments to relevant persons, periods of attachments and separation, the child’s ability to integrate into a substitute placement or back into his parent's home and the child’s physical and emotional needs.