In re Children of Anthony M.
Opinion
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2018 ME 146 Docket: Pen-18-185 Submitted on Briefs: October 10, 2018 Decided: November 6, 2018
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE CHILDREN OF ANTHONY M.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] The mother and father of three children appeal from a judgment of the District Court (Bangor, Jordan, J.) terminating their parental rights to their two older children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2017).1 The parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s determination of parental unfitness and further contend that the court erred by concluding that termination of their parental rights is in the best interests of the children. We affirm the judgment.
1 The judgment terminating parental rights also includes a jeopardy order that pertains to a
separate child protection action relating to the parents’ third and youngest child. The mother initially appealed the jeopardy order but later withdrew it, leaving only the appeal from the termination order relating to the two older children. Unless indicated otherwise, our references in this opinion to the children mean the two older children as to whom the parents’ rights have been terminated.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] The following facts, which are supported by the evidence, are drawn from the judgment2 and the procedural record. See In re Children of Nicole M., 2018 ME 75, ¶ 2, 187 A.3d 1.
[¶3] In July of 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition for preliminary protection and a child protection petition with respect to the mother and father’s two children, the younger of whom had just been born. See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4032-4033 (2017). The preliminary protection order was granted by the court (Budd, J.), and the children were placed in the custody of the Department at that time.
[¶4] By agreement, in February of 2017, the court (Jordan, J.) made a finding of jeopardy against the mother and father based on the father’s history of violence and criminal involvement, the mother’s pattern of choosing unsafe partners, and each parent’s untreated mental illness. The court’s permanency planning order included requirements that each parent complete a mental health evaluation and that the father be evaluated for the batterers intervention
2 The judgment also contains descriptions of testimony that the court did not characterize as findings of fact. We restrict our narrative to those facts that the court framed as its findings.
program. Both parents were ordered to follow any recommendations made by the evaluators.
[¶5] The following June, the Department petitioned the court to terminate both parents’ parental rights. While the termination petition was pending, the mother gave birth to the parents’ third child, who is the subject of a separate child protection proceeding. See supra n.1. After holding a three-day hearing in March of 2018, the court entered a judgment terminating both parents’ parental rights to the two older children. Based on clear and convincing evidence, the court found that each parent was unwilling or unable to protect those children from jeopardy and that that was unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs, and that each parent was unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children and could not do so within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). The court also determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of each parent’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).
[¶6] The court made the following factual findings, all of which are drawn from competent evidence in the record:
. . . The parents have a substantial history with the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Child Protection Division. Each
parent has other children in the custody of other parties. Both parents have been determined by the Court to have longstanding problems that impact on their ability to safely parent children. The principal question before this Court: Have they addressed those problems in a substantial enough fashion that jeopardy has been alleviated?
. . . .
. . . [The mother’s] jeopardy is based upon threat of neglect and neglect/failure to protect. She was diagnosed with PTSD and was not in treatment at the time of the Jeopardy Order. She also had a pattern of choosing unsafe partners including . . . the father of these . . . children. The jeopardy as to [the father] was due to physical abuse and threat of neglect. He was found to have a lengthy history of violence, including being physically violent with [the mother]
while she was pregnant with [the middle child]. He had untreated mental health issues including bi-polar disorder and, at that time, had warrants in the State of Nebraska.
The parties both have criminal records. . . . [The mother’s]
convictions [include] theft, . . . and operating while license suspended or revoked on June 21, 2017. [The mother] also has a number of pending charges.
The criminal record of [the father] is also significant [and includes]
. . . assault; . . . domestic violence assault, criminal mischief, and operating with a suspended license, conviction date April 5, 2010;
two unlawful possession of scheduled drugs, conviction date August 19, 2010; unlawful furnishing of drugs, conviction on November [8], 2012; two Class C felony convictions for unlawful possession of hydrocodone and oxycodone respectively on April 19, 2013; [three convictions for] operating while license is suspended or revoked [in] 2017; and a theft conviction on October 4, 2017. [The father] also acknowledges having a domestic abuse conviction from 2016 in Nebraska involving [the mother].
. . . [A] Licensed Clinical Social Worker who does batterers intervention program [BIP] assessments . . . did an assessment of [the father]. . . . She testified that there were inconsistencies between the paperwork and her face-to-face interview with [the father].
[The LCSW] stated that those inconsistencies concern substance abuse and domestic violence. In his written report [the father] denied having any substance abuse problems. He also denied any domestic abuse. When interviewed by [the LCSW], he acknowledged that he had several convictions for drugs. He also verbally admitted to three convictions for domestic abuse. He explained the apparent inconsistencies by stating that although he pled guilty to the domestic violence charges, he had not been domestically violent.
The Court finds that [the father’s] explanation does not make sense. . . . Having been convicted on a number of occasions of drug possession or furnishing drugs, he clearly had legal problems. The same analysis applies to the domestic violence area. . . . The Court finds that his answers were evasive and attempts to avoid responsibility for his conduct. Neither of those findings is helpful to showing an alleviation of jeopardy.
. . . [A nurse who] works at Eastern Maine Medical Center in the neonatal intensive care unit . . . worked with these parents when their [youngest child] was born [in August of 2017]. [The child] was exhibiting symptoms of neonatal abstinence syndrome. Essentially, she was experiencing withdrawal from the drugs she was exposed to while in utero.
[The nurse] testified that [in one interaction she had with the father, he] became very angry and threatening toward [her]. She credibly testified he said that if she did not leave the room, he might do something that would get him kicked out. . . . The Court finds that this circumstance also points to continuation of jeopardy as of the date of birth of [the youngest child.]
. . . .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2018 ME 146 (In re Children of Anthony M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.