In re River B.

2017 ME 77, 159 A.3d 1222, 2017 WL 1737849, 2017 Me. LEXIS 84

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• Decided: May 4, 2017
• Status: Published

Opinion

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2017 ME 77 Docket: Yor-16-515 Submitted On Briefs: April 27, 2017 Decided: May 4, 2017

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

IN RE RIVER B.

PER CURIAM

[¶1] The mother of River B. appeals from a judgment of the District

Court (Biddeford, Foster, J.) terminating her parental rights to her child

pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2016). She challenges the sufficiency

of the evidence to support the judgment. Because the evidence supports the

court’s findings, we affirm the judgment.

[¶2] Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found, by

clear and convincing evidence, that the mother is unwilling or unable to

protect the child from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to

change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; that the

mother is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time

that is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and that the mother

has failed to make a good faith effort to reunify with the child. See 22 M.R.S.

§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv). It also found, by clear and convincing 2

evidence, that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. See

22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a). The court based this determination on the

following specific findings of fact.

[¶3] The mother is addicted to prescription drugs, including opiates

and benzodiazepines, and abuses Neurontin. She also suffers from mental

health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive

disorder, and anxiety. The mother was arrested for operating a vehicle under

the influence with the child’s half-sibling in the back seat, and continued to

drive after the suspension of her license. She also appeared to be under the

influence of drugs during supervised visits with the child.

[¶4] Although the Department has provided her with services to

address her addiction and mental health issues, she has not made significant

progress in reunifying with the child over the past two years. Notably, despite

these services, the mother has persisted in seeking out prescription

medications from multiple medical providers and pharmacies across two

states under false pretenses and violating provisions of the court’s jeopardy

order regarding the child.1 She was dismissed from her psychiatrist’s care for

1 The court found that the mother’s claim that this drug-seeking behavior was undertaken by an

imposter who stole her identity is simply not credible based on abundant evidence in this case. It also found that her claim that two positive drug tests during the pendency of this child protection proceeding were the result of an assailant slipping her drugs without her knowledge is also not 3

misuse of medications and was not being treated by a psychiatrist at the time

of the termination hearing.

[¶5] The child, now almost three and a half years old, was born drug

affected. He has been out of the mother’s care for two years. He is happy,

healthy, and meeting his developmental milestones. He has been living with

his paternal grandfather; they are bonded, and the grandfather would like to

adopt the child.

[¶6] Given these findings, the court did not err in finding, by clear and

convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness and that

termination is in the best interest of the child. See In re M.S., 2014 ME 54,

¶¶ 13, 15, 90 A.3d 443. Nor did it abuse its discretion in determining that

termination is in the child’s best interest. See In re Alivia B., 2010 ME 112,

¶ 12, 8 A.3d 625. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

credible. See In re I.S., 2015 ME 100, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 105 (“[I]t was within the court’s province, as fact-finder, to determine the weight and credibility to be afforded to evidence.”). 4

Valerie A Randall, Esq., Fairfield & Associates, P.A., Portland, for appellant Mother

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

Biddeford District Court docket number PC-2015-8 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY