MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2017 ME 149
Docket: And-17-83
Submitted
On Briefs: June 29, 2017
Decided: July 11, 2017
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE DOMINIC B. et al.
HUMPHREY, J.
[¶1] The mother of Dominic B. and Channing T. appeals from a
judgment of the District Court (Lewiston, Dow, J.) terminating her parental
rights to her children.1 See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A), (B) (2016).
[¶2] The mother does not challenge the court’s findings that she is unfit
to parent the children because (1) she has abandoned them, (2) she is
unwilling and unable to protect them from jeopardy and these circumstances
are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet their
needs, and (3) she has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and
reunify with them.2 See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (iii), (iv). She
contends only that the court committed clear error or abused its discretion
1 The court also terminated the parental rights of the father of each child.
2 In any event, these findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.
See In re Daniel H., 2017 ME 89, ¶ 17, --- A.3d ---.
2
when it determined that termination of her parental rights is in the children’s
best interests. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).
[¶3] The mother’s primary concern is that the children’s current
placement, with their maternal grandparents, is unsafe, and she contends that
permanent placement there would not be in the children’s best interests. The
court’s best interests determination in connection with the termination of the
mother’s parental rights, however, was not a determination of who will adopt
the children or that any particular placement is in their best interests.
See In re Kenneth S., 2017 ME 45, ¶¶ 6, 8, 157 A.3d 244. It was a
determination that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s
best interests.3 Id.
[¶4] In support of that determination, the court made the following
findings of fact:
[The mother] has inexcusably failed, for a period of more than six
months, to communicate meaningfully or maintain regular
visitation with either Channing or Dominic. She has also failed to
participate in a plan or program of reunification.
. . . [The mother] missed every drug screen arranged by
DHHS, roughly 15-20 drug screens, offering the excuses of
transportation problems or work conflicts.
3 To the extent that the mother seeks to challenge the court’s order identifying adoption as the
permanency plan, see 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(3) (2016), that order is interlocutory and not appealable,
see 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2016); In re Johnna M., 2006 ME 46, ¶ 7 & n.1, 903 A.2d 331.
3
. . . .
[The mother] has repeatedly exposed the children to
domestic violence in her relationships with men, and she has
undertaken no services aimed at improving her insight or building
her skills for preventing that in the future.
. . . .
. . . [F]or much of the period of reunification, [the mother]
chose an abusive boyfriend . . . over the children.
. . . [The mother] testified that her lack of contact with the
children was the fault of DHHS and her mother and stepfather.
The [c]ourt does not believe her.
. . . The children have been placed in the care of the maternal
grandmother and her husband . . . since April of 2014. . . . [The
grandparents] meet all of the children’s needs. They provide
safety and stability for the children. They are willing to provide
permanency for the children.
Both boys have medical issues that require medications and
appointments. . . . [The grandparents] do a good job managing the
boys’ medications and appointments and communicating with
their providers.
Dominic has expressed a clear preference for permanency
with the [grandparents]. [He] is very angry with his mother. He
refuses to see her, at this point. He is exhausted with her lies and
her inconsistency. Channing is too young to express a meaningful
preference, but he has been placed with the [grandparents] since
he was less than a year old. . . . [T]he children have been in the
care of the [grandparents] for close[] to three years. They
absolutely need this permanency.
4
[¶5] Given these findings, which are supported by competent evidence
in the record, the court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion
when it determined that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the
children’s best interests. See In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66, ¶ 33, 159 A.3d 345;
In re Kenneth S., 2017 ME 45, ¶¶ 6-8, 157 A.3d 244; In re Ashley A.,
679 A.2d 86, 89 (Me. 1996).
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Richard Charest, Esq., Lewiston, for appellant mother
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
Lewiston District Court docket numbers PC-2014-33 and -34
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY