In re Children of Benjamin D. , 2018 ME 136 ( 2018 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2018 ME 136Docket: Ken-18-109
Submitted
On Briefs: September 26, 2018
Decided: October 4, 2018
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE CHILDREN OF BENJAMIN D.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Benjamin D. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Augusta,
Fowle, J.) terminating his parental rights to his two children.1 He challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s finding of parental unfitness
and the court’s discretionary determination that termination is in the best
interests of the children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2017). Because the
evidence supports the court’s findings and discretionary determinations, we
affirm the judgment.
[¶2] Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found by clear
and convincing evidence that the father (1) is unable to protect the children
from jeopardy, and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time
1 On June 27, 2017, the District Court (Augusta, Fowle, J.) entered a judgment terminating the
mother’s parental rights after the mother consented in writing to the termination of her rights.
See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), B(1) (2017). The mother does not appeal from that judgment.
2
that is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs and (2) is unwilling
and unable to take responsibility for the children within a time that is
reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs. See 22 M.R.S.
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) (2017). The court also found that termination of the
father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. See 22 M.R.S.
§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).
[¶3] We review factual findings supporting the unfitness determination
for clear error and apply the same standard to the factual findings supporting
the best interest determination. See In re Child of James R., 2018 ME 50,
¶¶ 11, 14, 182 A.3d 1252. We review the court’s ultimate conclusion that
termination is in the children’s best interest for an abuse of discretion. See
In re Anastasia M., 2017 ME 213, ¶ 2, 172 A.3d 922.
[¶4] The court based its determinations on the following findings of fact:
The Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter
DHHS) has been involved with [the father] since at least 2009. . . .
[T]he Department became involved again, following the birth of
[his youngest daughter], [in June 2016]. She was born drug
affected. . . . Because of other reports of drug use by [the mother
and the father], and domestic violence between them, the
Department met with the father at his residence. . . . This residence
was actually a bedroom in [a friend’s] apartment, and it was
cluttered. On June 20, 2016, the mother was arrested for assaulting
the father. . . . On this same date, harmful chemicals were
discovered in the father’s residence, and he was ultimately
arrested, charged and convicted of Operation of a
3
Methamphetamine Lab. [The oldest daughter] was found to be
filthy and was placed in Interim care out of concern that she may
have been present while the Lab was in operation. The father
denied at the hearing that this was the case, but did acknowledge
that the Lab was located at his stated residence. . . .
[The father’s] treatment with [a treatment provider] started
in August 2017, and lasted until he was terminated from the
program, for hanging up on treatment personnel who were
attempting to conduct a pill count on December 28, 2017. . . . It is
also noted that the father made no further effort to get back into
counseling, and was not in counseling at the time of the hearing on
January 24, 2018.
[The father] tested positive for cocaine in the fall of 2017,
which he denies. In 2012, he was convicted of Assault, Criminal
Trespass and Theft. He denied the assault during his testimony. In
2009, he was convicted of Sexual Abuse of a minor. . . . His refusal
to accept full responsibility for his actions, has more significance
with the court, than the convictions themselves. He has fathered
six children and does not provide care for any of them. The record
reflects that he previously discontinued treatment in November of
2016, while he was waiting for the resolution of his charge for
Operating a Methamphetamine Lab. Similarly, his denial that the
children were anywhere near the methamphetamine lab does not
appear to ring true. The lab was operated at [his residence] during
the spring of 2016. The record reflects that during this time the
children were present upon those premises.
Of additional concern to the court is the father’s continued
relationship with [the mother]. . . . This concerns the court greatly,
with respect to whether he is putting the needs of his children first,
as he also acknowledged that [the mother] is not good for him or
the children. It should be noted that [the mother] consented to a
Termination of her parental rights on June 27, 2017. [The father]
has alternatively stated that his relationship with [the mother]
ended fourteen months ago, or two months ago, and it is clear that
his association with her continued until the hearing in January.
4
. . . .
[The father] has engaged in counseling and treatment with [a
treatment provider] for a sustained period of five months before
they terminated him from treatment. A cocaine relapse was the
significant blemish during this time period. The court is concerned
about [the father’s] termination from treatment. . . . His failure to
follow up with other treatment is also of concern. His continued
association with [the mother] at a time when all of his efforts
should have been directed toward reunification with his children
may be the biggest concern of all.
. . . .
In the present case, [the oldest child] was born on
May 5, 2014, and [the youngest child] was born on June 6, 2016.
The children have been out of their parent’s custody since
June 20, 2016. . . . In the case of [the youngest child], nearly her
entire life has been spent in the care and custody of [her foster
parents]. The same is the case with [the oldest child] since June of
2016. Both children have been living with the [foster parents] for
well over one and a half years. The father is not in a position to
“soon secure full-time parenting,” and his future prospects to do so,
are at best uncertain, and a long time in the future.
The court concludes 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 period
which is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs. The
father has simply not made sufficient progress with his counseling
and treatment, nor has he shown a demonstrated commitment to
follow through on this. He is unemployed, without suitable
housing, and has a difficult time accepting responsibility for his
actions. In addition, his continued association with [the mother],
when he acknowledges that this is bad for both him and the
children, causes this court to conclude that he is not ready to
assume full time parenting responsibilities nor is he likely to be
5
ready in the short to medium term, and certainly not within the
three months proposed by [the father]. Similarly, [the father] is
unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a
time which is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs.
[¶5] Contrary to the father’s contentions, given these findings and the
court’s other specific findings of fact, there is competent evidence in the record
to support the trial court’s conclusion that the father (1) is unable to protect his
children from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within
a time period that is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs and
(2) is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a time
that is reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs. See
22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii); In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21,
854 A.2d 195. Additionally, the evidence supports the court’s determination
that termination of the father’s parental rights is 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 court did not err in finding, or abuse its discretion in its ultimate
conclusion, that the termination of the father’s parental rights was in the
children’s best interests. See id.The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
6
Aaron B. Rowden, Esq., Waterville, 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-2016-47
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY