In re Kayleigh P.

2017 ME 96, 165 A.3d 340, 2017 WL 2119336, 2017 Me. LEXIS 99

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• Decided: May 16, 2017
• Status: Published

Opinion

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2017 ME 96 Docket: Cum-16-508 Submitted On Briefs: April 27, 2017 Decided: May 16, 2017

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

IN RE KAYLEIGH P. et al.

PER CURIAM

[¶1] The father of Kayleigh P. and Mikaela P. appeals from a judgment of

the District Court (Portland, Powers, J.) terminating his parental rights to the

children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2016). Because, contrary to

the father’s contention, the evidence supports the court’s factual findings and

the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination is in the

children’s best interest, we affirm the judgment.

[¶2] The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the father

was unable to protect the children from jeopardy or to take responsibility for

them within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs, and that it was

in the children’s best interest for his parental rights to be terminated. 22 M.R.S.

§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii); see In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66, ¶ 27, --- A.3d ---.

The court made its determination based on the following findings of fact that

are supported by evidence in the record. See In re Logan M., 2017 ME 23, ¶ 3, 2

155 A.3d 430 (stating that factual findings supporting the trial court’s unfitness

determination are reviewed for clear error); In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66, ¶ 33,

--- A.3d --- (stating that factual findings supporting the trial court’s best interest

determination are reviewed for clear error).

[¶3] In October 2014, after the Department of Health and Human

Services obtained a preliminary child protection order granting it custody of

the children upon discovering that they had been neglected and “generally

mistreated” while in the care of their mother, the Department contacted the

father and his partner, who herself has a serious child protection history,

concerning whether the father could care for the children. The father, who had

not seen the children since January 2014, was unable to do so. The Department

placed the children with a foster family, where they remain more than two

years later. After the Department took custody of the children, the father had

visits with them that were always supervised. Based on the testimony of visit

supervisors, the court found that the father “does an average job [of] parenting

. . . during these two hour visits,” and that he was “not particularly empathetic”

toward the children.

[¶4] When a February 2016 termination petition was withdrawn, giving

the father extra time to seek reunification, the Department developed an 3

updated, detailed reunification plan. After that plan was instituted, the father’s

attendance at the girls’ medical appointments became worse. He did not

understand their medical needs and diagnoses, or know their therapists’

names. He made no progress in meeting the reunification plan’s requirement

that he utilize a parenting coach. The plan also required the father to get mental

health treatment for issues that included an anger problem and depression. He

felt no need for counseling or dealing with his anger issues, however, even

though his counselor testified that he still had depression and unresolved PTSD

and ADHD diagnoses. The counselor acknowledged that the focus of his work

was on the father’s personal issues, not on his parenting skills.

[¶5] The court found that the Department was justifiably concerned that

the father did not act as his children’s primary parent, instead relying on his

partner to provide most of the care for his “challenging” girls, and that a

separation between the father and his partner, which had occurred at least once

during their relationship, would endanger the girls’ well-being. The court also

found that the children—although they still have significant emotional and

medical needs—are doing well, in contrast to the “out of control and

destructive” behavior that they exhibited when they first entered foster care, 4

and that they have benefitted from the long-term counseling and frequent

in-home services that they have received.

[¶6] The GAL recommended termination. The court found persuasive

the GAL’s opinion that (1) the father cannot safely care for the children given

their “high level of needs,” (2) the children do well where they reside and need

permanency, and (3) that need could be met by adoption. See In re Caleb M.,

2017 ME 66, ¶ 27, --- A.3d --- (“The weight and credibility of the testimony and

other evidence, including GAL reports, is for the fact-finder’s determination.”

(quotation marks omitted)).

[¶7] Weighing all of the evidence, the court found that “[t]here is no

evidence that the . . . unfitness issue will resolve anytime soon enough to allow

the father to protect and care for the girls.” Given the court’s supported factual

findings, and giving its judgment the “substantial deference” to which it is

entitled, id. ¶ 33 (quotation marks omitted), the court did not err in finding “by

clear and convincing evidence[] at least one ground of parental unfitness,” id.

¶ 27 (quotation marks omitted), and did not abuse its discretion in determining

that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best

interest, see id. ¶ 34. 5

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Lauren Wille, Esq., DeGrinney Law Offices, Portland, for appellant Father

Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services

Portland District Court docket number PC-2014-91 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY