In re Ryder C.

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2017 ME 164
Docket: Ken-17-72
Submitted
On Briefs: June 29, 2017
Decided: July 20, 2017

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

IN RE RYDER C.

HJELM, J.

[¶1] The mother and father of Ryder C. appeal from a judgment of the

District Court (Augusta, Nale, J.) terminating their parental rights pursuant to

22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (1)(B)(2)(a), (1)(B)(2)(b)(i), and (1-A)(E)

(2016). Both parents challenge the court’s findings that they are unfit and its

conclusion that termination of their parental rights is in the child’s best

interest. Because the evidence supports the court’s findings and the court did

not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in making its best interest

determination, we affirm the judgment. See In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18,

¶¶ 10-11, 154 A.3d 1199.

[¶2] Based on evidence presented during a three-day hearing held in

December 2016 and January 2017, the court found by clear and convincing

evidence, both directly and based on a statutory presumption of unfitness, see
2

22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A)(E),1 that the parents are unable to protect the child

from jeopardy and that those circumstances are unlikely to change within a

time calculated to meet the child’s needs, see id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i). See

In re Robert S., 2009 ME 18, ¶ 15, 966 A.2d 894. The court also determined

that termination of the parental rights of the mother and father is in the best

interest of the child, who was three years old at the time of the hearing. See

id.; 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).

[¶3] In reaching those determinations, the court made the following

factual findings, which are supported by the record. See In re Mya E., 2017 ME

93, ¶ 2, --- A.3d ---.

[¶4] The child was born at thirty-two weeks with serious medical and

developmental disabilities that still profoundly affect him. The child has been

under the care of a cardiologist, an orthopedic surgeon, a geneticist, an eye

doctor, a neurologist, and an ear, nose, and throat physician, in addition to his

pediatrician. Due to his medical needs, the child’s survival depends on

“consistent and unwavering attention” and care from his caregivers.

1 Title 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A)(E) (2016) provides:

The court may presume that the parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child
from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which
is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs if . . . [t]he child has been placed in
the legal custody or care of the department for at least 9 months, and the parents
have been offered or received services to correct the situation but have refused or
have made no significant effort to correct the situation.
 3

[¶5] Additionally, while he was in his parents’ care, the child suffered

from “significant environmental failure to thrive.” He was not adequately fed

and, during his second year of life, essentially gained no weight. The child’s

medical care was compromised because his parents caused him to miss

dozens of scheduled medical appointments. The court accepted the

assessment of a physician who testified that this was “one of the most severe

cases of parental neglect” he had seen in thirty years of practice. During that

time, the mother also abused her prescription medications.

[¶6] After the child had been placed in foster care, which occurred in

August 2015, he was returned to his mother’s custody for a trial placement.

As the court found, that effort was “a mistake.” During the six weeks when the

child was with her in the spring of 2016, the mother did not take him to

“crucial scheduled appointments”; she did not adequately feed him, causing

him to lose weight; and she deliberately overstated to the child’s medical

provider how much food she was giving him.

[¶7] The father suffers from mental health issues, but he has refused to

participate in individual counseling as required by his reunification plan and

has failed to submit to drug screens as requested. He does not understand

why the child was placed in the care of the Department of Health and Human
4

Services. The court agreed with the father’s own assessment that he is

presently unable to care for the child.

[¶8] Since being placed in foster care, the child is in “reasonably good

health,” he has consistently gained weight, and his physiological development

has been “spectacular.” His foster parent meets his significant needs, such as

providing physical and occupational therapy and taking the child to his

medical appointments. Both parents, on the other hand, have missed many of

the child’s appointments, and the father has not appeared for most scheduled

visits. The court found that the mother’s excuses for the missed appointments

were not credible. Although the parents love the child, both have their own

“incredible needs,” and neither is able to manage the demands of the child’s

care “or even recognize what those needs are.”

[¶9] The court’s factual findings explain the serious needs of the child,

the parents’ failure to make a significant effort to improve their caregiving

abilities while the child has been in the Department’s custody, and their

inability to assume responsibility of caring for the child. The findings of

parental unfitness were supported by the evidence, and the court did not

abuse its discretion or err in determining that termination of the parental
 5

rights of the mother and father will serve the child’s best interest. See In re

Cameron Z., 2016 ME 162, ¶¶ 17-18, 150 A.3d 805.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Elyse M. Apantaku, Esq., Schneider & Brewer, Waterville, for appellant mother

Thomas W. Bell, Esq., The Law Office of Thomas W. Bell, Topsham, 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

Augusta District Court docket number PC-2015-3
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY