MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2018 ME 159
Docket: Aro-18-262
Submitted
On Briefs: November 28, 2018
Decided: December 6, 2018
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE CHILDREN OF EDWARD F.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Edward F. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Presque
Isle, Roberts, J.) terminating his parental rights to his three children.1 We affirm
the judgment.
[¶2] In March 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services filed
a petition for preliminary protection and a child protection petition with
respect to the father’s three children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and
(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), and (iv) (2017). The petition alleged that the children were in
jeopardy from their father due to an “immediate risk of serious harm due to
threat of physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment and neglect.”
The court granted the Department’s petition for a preliminary protection order,
and the children were placed with the Department.
1 The Department did not seek to terminate the mother’s parental rights.
2
[¶3] In September 2017, the court (Rushlau, J.) entered a jeopardy order
based on the father’s issues with domestic violence, substance abuse, and
inappropriate physical force used in discipline. The court’s permanency
planning order included requirements that the father complete a mental health
assessment, substance abuse assessment, sex offender risk evaluation,
psychological evaluation, and an evaluation for a batterer’s intervention
program. The father participated in the mental health evaluation but refused
to engage in any other services.
[¶4] The following January, the Department filed a petition for
termination of the father’s parental rights. On June 11, 2018, the court
(Roberts, J.) held a hearing on the Department’s petition. Notwithstanding
proper notice being provided to him, the father failed to appear at the hearing.
Counsel appointed to represent the father did appear at the hearing.
[¶5] On June 12, 2018, the court granted the Department’s petition to
terminate the father’s parental rights. Based on the testimony presented at the
hearing and other competent evidence in the record, the court found by clear
and convincing evidence that (1) the father is unwilling or unable to protect the
children from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within
a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs; (2) the
3
father failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the
children; and (3) termination of the father’s parental rights is in the best
interests of the children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), and (iv).
[¶6] The court based its decision to terminate the father’s rights on the
following factual findings, all of which are supported by competent evidence in
the record.
The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence, that with
respect to the father, . . . the State has met its burden of proof with
respect to subsections 1 and 4. [The father’s] relationship with [the
mother] was marred by domestic violence to a degree which would
jeopardize the children’s safety. The arguments between the
parents with screaming, angry behaviors had an impact on the
children. [The father] used a belt on his children to a degree that
was excessive and abusive. [The father] became angry and
potentially violent when abusing alcohol. . . . The impact of all this
[including other forms of abuse] on the children has been to cause
delays developmentally. [The oldest and middle child] have been
diagnosed with [serious mental health diagnoses] resulting from
their violent home life. [The father’s] visits with the children were
discontinued in November of 2017, due to his aggressive behaviors
and emails. The Department made reasonable efforts to reunify
and rehabilitate the family. Those reasonable efforts regarding the
father consisted of requests that he engage in assessments and
counseling. [The father] attended a mental health assessment, but
declined to participate in the recommended therapy. He refused to
attend appointments for assessments related to substance abuse,
sex offender risk evaluation or batterer’s intervention. He
indicated that he would not participate in any services arranged by
the Department. He has exhibited quick frustration and anger
before the court. He has chosen not to engage in the services that
would enable him to be reunified with his children. His failure to
4
attend a TPR hearing demonstrates that his focus [is] on combat
with the Department rather than reunification with his children.[2]
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DHHS
offered [the father] appropriate services and referred [him] to
providers. He was simply unwilling or unable to engage or make
changes. This court finds that there is nothing more that DHHS
could have done to assist [the father] in this case.
[The mother] attends individual mental health therapy. She
has maintained employment. [The mother] is working with the
children’s therapist to attempt to understand and meet their
emotional needs. [She] obtained a Protection from Abuse Order
regarding [the father] and has called law enforcement twice
regarding violations of the order. [The mother’s] efforts at
reunification with her children can only progress if [the father] is
out of the picture. It is in the children’s best interest to allow their
mother the best opportunity for rehabilitation.
The children reside in the home of [their foster parents].
[The foster parents] have an understanding of the children’s
emotional needs and the vigilance required to monitor their
behaviors. All three children arrived at the foster home with
serious issues. The [foster parents] have supported their therapy
while providing the safety and consistency that they need. The
children have made significant progress. Their continued progress
requires that they have no contact with their father.
The court must look at whether [the father] will be able to
protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably
calculated to meet their needs, and he cannot. . . . The children have
been in DHHS custody for approximately 16 months. Each month
is a long time in the lives of children of their ages. With no
indication that [the father] intends to participate in the process of
rehabilitation and reunification, it is apparent that he cannot
2 The record contains evidence of violent and threatening emails sent by the father to individuals
attempting to help his children.
5
alleviate jeopardy for the children within a time reasonably
calculated to meet their needs.
. . . .
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that [the
father] is unable to protect [the children] from Jeopardy and these
circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is
reasonably calculated to meet their needs. This court also finds by
clear and convincing evidence that [the father] has failed to make a
good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children.
Finally, the court finds that it is in the best interest [of the
children] that their father’s parental rights be terminated to allow
their mother the best opportunity to rehabilitate and reunify with
them.
[¶7] The father timely appealed. See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2017); M.R. App.
P. 2B(c)(1). Pursuant to the process outlined in In re M.C., 2014 ME 128, ¶ 7,
104 A.3d 139, counsel for the father timely filed a brief containing the factual
and procedural history of the case, stating that he believed that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel also filed a motion for an enlargement
of time to allow the father to personally file a supplemental brief. Although we
granted the father an enlargement of time to file a supplemental brief, the father
did not do so by the deadline specified in the order.
[¶8] Based on the facts that the court found, all of which have evidentiary
support, the court did not err in finding that the father remains unable to
protect the children from jeopardy within a time that is reasonably calculated
6
to meet their needs and has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and
reunify with the children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) and (iv); In re
Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 854 A.2d 195. Nor did the court err or abuse its
discretion in determining that the termination of the father’s parental rights
was in the children’s best interests. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a); In re A.H.,
2013 ME 85, ¶ 16, 77 A.3d 1012.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Christopher S. Berryment, Esq., Mexico, for appellant father
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief
Presque Isle District Court docket number PC-2017-3
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY