In re Child of Tiffany F.

2018 ME 137

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• Decided: October 4, 2018
• Status: Published

Opinion

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2018 ME 137 Docket: Cum-18-104 Submitted On Briefs: September 26, 2018 Decided: October 4, 2018

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

IN RE CHILD OF TIFFANY F.

PER CURIAM

[¶1] Tiffany F. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland,

Powers, J.) finding circumstances of jeopardy to her newborn child’s health and

welfare pursuant to § 4035(4-A) (2017). She argues that the evidence was

insufficient to support the trial court’s finding of jeopardy. Because the record

evidence supports the court’s finding and determination of jeopardy, we affirm

the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] On November 28, 2017, after receiving several reports regarding

the care and safety of the newborn child, the Department of Health and Human

Services visited the mother and child in the hospital. The next day, concerned

about the mother’s inability to properly care for the child, particularly her

failure to properly support the newborn’s head and her noncompliance with

medical advice and breastfeeding instructions, the Department facilitated a 2

family team meeting during which the caseworker, the mother, and a maternal

aunt agreed that the child would be released to the care of the maternal aunt

upon discharge from the hospital.

[¶3] The Department filed a petition for a child protection order on

January 2, 2018, when the child was approximately five weeks old. See 22

M.R.S. § 4032 (2017). The petition alleged that the mother was unable to safely

care for the child, declined to follow the medical recommendations of hospital

staff, repeatedly co-slept with the child in the hospital, and refused to

supplement the child’s feedings with formula when the newborn began to lose

weight following birth. On February 8 and 9, 2018, the court held a jeopardy

hearing and made oral findings that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy.

See 22 M.R.S. § 4035(1) (2017). On February 13, the court (Powers, J.), after

reaching findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence, entered a

jeopardy order granting custody to the Department. See 22 M.R.S. § 4035(2)

(2017). The court made the following findings of fact, which are supported by

competent record evidence. See In re Destiny T., 2009 ME 26, ¶ 14,

965 A.2d 872.

It is likely that [the mother] failed to support the child’s head, attempted to co-sleep with her child, disregarded breast-feeding instructions, refused recommended shots for the child, refused to supplement insufficient breast milk with formula . . . . She did 3

independent research on various parenting and health topics, some of which apparently convinced her to act in opposition to recommended medical and proper parenting advice she received in the hospital and thereafter. In some instances, she did eventually . . . follow recommended procedures. Her refusals went beyond proper questioning and became obstructive and potentially harmful to the vulnerable newborn.

. . . .

. . . [The mother] has sadly experienced traumatic brain injury in 2004 from a car accident, which still caused residual impairments involving attention, memory, and otherwise per a 2009 neuropsychological evaluation.

The jeopardy is summarized as the mother’s ongoing failure to accept medical and parenting advice regarding her newborn [child], coupled with unsafe decision-making involving her [child] which placed [the child] at risk with a threat of serious harm and deprivation of proper health care.

. . . The mother needs services and support before she is able to care safely for [the child] independently.

[¶4] Based on these findings, the court found, by a preponderance of the

evidence, circumstances of jeopardy to the child’s health and welfare. See 22

M.R.S. §§ 4002(6)(A)-(B), 4035(2) (2017). The mother appeals. See 22 M.R.S.

§ 4006. 4

II. DISCUSSION

[¶5] The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

the jeopardy finding. We review the District Court’s findings of fact for clear

error; those findings will be upheld unless “there is no competent record

evidence that can rationally be understood to establish as more likely than not

that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy to his health and welfare.” In re

M.E., 2014 ME 98, ¶ 16, 97 A.3d 1082 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Contrary to the mother’s contentions, the court’s findings as to the mother’s

inability to adequately care for the child and to make safe decisions with regard

to necessary health care are fully supported by competent evidence in the

record. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not err in finding that

the child was in circumstances of jeopardy. See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4002(6)(A)-(B),

4035(2); In re M.E., 2014 ME 98, ¶ 16, 97 A.3d 1082.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Caitlin Ross Wahrer, Esq., Chester & Vestal, P.A., Portland, for appellant Mother

Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine

Portland District Court docket number PC-2018-1 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY