In re Children of Brittany B. , 2020 ME 1 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT                                                     Reporter of Decisions
    Decision:    
    2020 ME 1
    Docket:      Yor-19-251
    Submitted
    On Briefs: November 21, 2019
    Decided:     January 2, 2020
    Panel:        SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.*
    IN RE CHILDREN OF BRITTANY B.
    SAUFLEY, C.J.
    [¶1] Brittany B. appeals from orders entered in the District Court
    (Springvale, Mulhern, J.) finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that two
    of her children1 were in jeopardy to their health or welfare in the mother’s care.
    She argues, on appeal, that her due process rights were violated because of
    ineffective assistance of counsel. She also argues that the court abused its
    discretion in denying her motion in limine and admitting in evidence certain
    statements made by the children to Department of Health and Human Services
    caseworkers. Concluding that the mother has not presented a prima facie case
    of attorney ineffectiveness and that the record supports the court’s evidentiary
    ruling, we affirm the judgment.
    *   Although Justice Hjelm participated in the appeal, he retired before this opinion was certified.
    1   Although the mother has several children, only two children are the subject of this appeal.
    2
    I. BACKGROUND
    [¶2] The following facts are drawn from the court’s findings, which are
    supported by competent record evidence, and from the procedural record. See
    In re Child of Radience K., 
    2019 ME 73
    , ¶ 2, 
    208 A.3d 380
    .
    [¶3] In late 2018, after the two children had expressed to a caseworker
    that they had been physically abused by their father,2 the Department filed a
    petition for a child protection order for the two children. At the time, however,
    the Department did not request that the court remove the children from the
    mother’s custody. In early 2019, the Department dismissed the petition after
    the mother began participating in treatment services.
    [¶4] On March 8, 2019, the mother left the children in her home with two
    men. The two men had a history of substance abuse.3 That night, while the
    mother was absent, an officer responded to a report of an assault occurring at
    her home. Individuals had allegedly come to the home and assaulted one of the
    men watching the children.                 After the incident, Department caseworkers
    interviewed the older child, who explained that the children heard noises and
    2   The court found jeopardy as to the father on June 24, 2019. He does not appeal the order.
    3Additionally, an officer testified that police had observed drug paraphernalia inside the home.
    Similarly, the older child indicated seeing a large pipe.
    3
    were afraid throughout the incident. The next evening, the mother again left
    her children in the care of one of the two men. Two days later, the mother
    visited a hospital—accompanied by the youngest child—seeking treatment for
    a skin infection. After the mother became verbally assaultive when asked if she
    had been using drugs, a physician made a referral to the Department.
    [¶5] The Department again initiated child protection proceedings as to
    the two children on March 12, 2019, and petitioned for a preliminary protection
    order. The court (Moskowitz, J.) entered a preliminary protection order that
    day, placing the children in temporary Department custody. After the order
    had been entered, the mother fled with the children to Massachusetts. On
    March 18, 2019, the children were located, and Department caseworkers
    traveled to a hospital in Massachusetts where the children were waiting with a
    Massachusetts state trooper. The children were taken to a foster home in Maine
    that same day.
    [¶6] At a summary preliminary hearing on March 25, 2019, the mother
    exercised her right to contest the temporary order. Following the hearing, the
    court (Duddy, J.) found that the children were in immediate risk of serious harm
    in the custody of their parents and continued the preliminary protection order.
    4
    [¶7] On June 3 and June 4, 2019, the court (Mulhern, J.) held a contested
    jeopardy hearing. On the first day of the hearing, the mother filed a motion in
    limine, seeking to exclude from evidence any statements by her children to
    Department caseworkers regarding the incident on March 8, 2019. The court
    denied the motion. On June 6, 2019, the court found jeopardy to the children
    based on the risk of physical and emotional harm, and exposure to multiple
    unsafe people with a history of violence. The court based its determination on
    the following findings of fact:
    Jeopardy as to the mother consists of a risk of physical and
    emotional harm due to exposing the children to unsafe individuals
    and situations. [The mother] has left the children with caregivers
    who she knows to be drug users, drug dealers and have histories of
    domestic violence. In mid-March, after the children were placed in
    the Department’s temporary custody, [the mother] fled with the
    children in an attempt to keep them from the Department. She
    returned to Maine only upon her arrest on a warrant. [The mother]
    has been getting services for substance abuse and trauma issues for
    over one year . . . but she continues to make unsafe decisions for
    herself and her children. These jeopardy issues are due to a
    constellation of issues, including [the mother’s] trauma history,
    history of substance abuse and fragile recovery, health issues and
    the effects of her domestic violence history.
    [¶8] The mother appeals.
    II. DISCUSSION
    [¶9] The pleadings before us present two issues. The mother argues that
    (A) her trial counsel’s assistance was ineffective and (B) the court abused its
    5
    discretion in admitting statements by the children regarding the incident on
    March 8, 2019. We address each in turn.
    A.    Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    [¶10] First, the mother raises a claim that her counsel at the jeopardy
    proceeding was ineffective. It is well-established that “a parent’s right to
    counsel during the jeopardy stage of child protection proceeding includes the
    right to the effective assistance of counsel.” 
    Id. ¶ 56.
    [¶11] Because the “need for a swift resolution of ineffectiveness claims
    at the termination stage of child protection proceedings applies just as
    forcefully at the jeopardy stage because of the nature of the parents’ interests
    that are affected by a jeopardy order and the ongoing importance of achieving
    ultimate permanency for the child,” we have held that the procedural
    requirements governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel stemming
    from a termination hearing also govern claims of ineffective assistance of
    counsel following a jeopardy proceeding. 
    Id. ¶ 59
    (citation omitted) (quotation
    marks omitted).
    [¶12] There are two procedural mechanisms through which a parent
    may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.      In re Children of
    Matthew G., 
    2019 ME 106
    , ¶ 6, 
    211 A.3d 226
    . “First, if there are no new facts
    6
    that the parent seeks to offer in support of the claim, the parent may make an
    ineffectiveness claim in a direct appeal” from the jeopardy order. 
    Id. “Second, if
    the basis for the parent’s ineffectiveness challenge is not clear from the
    existing record and would require a court to consider extrinsic evidence, the
    parent must promptly move for relief” from the judgment pursuant to M.R.
    Civ. P. 60(b)(6). See 
    id. “Regardless of
    how the parent presents the claim, the
    parent must execute and file an affidavit stating, with specificity, the basis for
    the claim.” 
    Id. [¶13] Here,
    the mother asserts her ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal.
    Although she has submitted a signed and sworn affidavit, her affidavit does not
    provide any information about the basis for her ineffectiveness claim. See In re
    Aliyah M., 
    2016 ME 106
    , ¶ 10, 
    144 A.3d 50
    . The mother’s affidavit states only,
    “I believe [trial counsel’s] representation of me during the trial was inefficient
    and that this effected the outcome of the trial.” Because the affidavit provides
    no specificity whatsoever, the foundation for a claim of ineffective assistance of
    counsel is absent, and we must deny her claim. 
    Id. ¶ 9.
    [¶14] Even if the mother had presented her ineffectiveness claim in an
    effective affidavit,4 however, her argument—as far as we can discern it—would
    4 When a parent makes a claim of ineffective counsel, the parent bears the burden to show that
    “(1) counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e., that there has been serious incompetency, inefficiency,
    7
    be unsuccessful. 
    Id. ¶ 11.
    In her brief, the mother asserts that her counsel failed
    to make a general request for discovery or file a motion to compel when
    discovery had not been promptly provided. As shown in the record, however,
    trial counsel was provided discovery on May 30, 2019, prior to the hearing.
    Thus, that claim is unpersuasive. Moreover, after receiving discovery, the
    mother’s counsel prepared a motion in limine seeking to exclude the children’s
    statements regarding the incident on March 8, 2019, in great part based on the
    missing recordings of interviews conducted of the children. When the court
    denied the motion, the mother’s counsel addressed evidentiary concerns
    through a series of objections, before renewing efforts regarding her motion in
    limine. Ultimately, the record demonstrates assertive and effective assistance
    of counsel.
    B.     Children’s Out-of-Court Statements
    [¶15] The mother next argues that, because her counsel did not have
    access to audio recordings of the children’s interviews with Department
    caseworkers, her counsel could not properly prepare to cross-examine
    or inattention of counsel amounting to performance . . . below what might be expected from an
    ordinary fallible attorney,” and demonstrate that “(2) the parent was prejudiced by the attorney’s
    deficient performance in that counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the
    adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” In re Child of
    Kimberlee C., 
    2018 ME 134
    , ¶ 6, 
    194 A.3d 925
    (quotation marks omitted).
    8
    witnesses.5 She asserts that, if the court had granted the motion in limine and
    excluded the children’s statements regarding the March 8, 2019, incident, there
    would not have been competent evidence in the record to support a finding of
    jeopardy. “We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for clear error and an
    abuse of discretion.” In re Kayla S., 
    2001 ME 79
    , ¶ 9, 
    722 A.2d 858
    .
    [¶16]       Generally, hearsay is inadmissible under Maine Rule of
    Evidence 802. A court, however, “may admit and consider oral or written
    evidence of out-of-court statements made by a child, and may rely on that
    evidence to the extent of its probative value.” 22 M.R.S. § 4007(2) (2018).
    Contrary to the mother’s contentions, although we recognize her “fundamental
    liberty interest to direct the care, custody, and control of their children, [w]e
    have held that the introduction of evidence pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4007(2) . . .
    does not violate due process.” In re Children of Danielle H., 
    2019 ME 134
    , ¶ 6,
    
    215 A.3d 217
    (alterations in original) (citation omitted).
    [¶17] The mother’s primary objection to the admission of evidence of the
    children’s statements through others was based on her lack of timely access to
    5Significantly, no counsel participating in the hearing had obtained the audio recordings of the
    children’s statements before the hearing. At hearing, the counsel for the Department and the
    guardian ad litem stated that neither had heard, nor received, any recordings of the children’s
    statements. The record is not clear as to why the recordings were not provided, but it is clear that
    counsel took steps to attempt to limit the detriment that her client might experience as a result of the
    missing recordings.
    9
    the recordings and the assertion that the mother would be at a disadvantage if
    the statements were admitted without counsel having had access to the
    recordings. The trial court was unpersuaded by the mother’s objection and
    reasonably “balanced the interest of the State in protecting the [children] with
    the interest of the parents in maintaining custody” when it allowed the
    children’s statements into evidence. In re Destiny T., 
    2009 ME 26
    , ¶ 12, 
    965 A.2d 872
    ; see 22 M.R.S. § 4007(2).       Thus, the court recognized the statutory
    abrogation of the hearsay rule concerning statements made by children.
    Indeed, when it addressed the issue of hearsay as it relates to the children’s
    statements, the court recognized the general statutory policy that children’s
    statements be allowed and directed the mother’s counsel to make appropriate
    objections during examinations, objections which counsel presented. A court
    has “broad discretion in determining the weight to accord [a child’s]
    statement.” In re Serena C., 
    650 A.2d 1343
    , 1345 (Me. 1994); In re Children of
    Danielle H., 
    2019 ME 134
    , ¶ 7, 
    215 A.3d 217
    (explaining that “whether to admit
    a child’s out-of-court statement lies within the trial court’s discretion”).
    [¶18] We discern no abuse of that discretion on this record, where the
    mother had opportunity to examine witnesses concerning the children’s
    statements and corroborating evidence, in addition to testifying herself
    10
    concerning the events at issue. This is all the more true given that the evidence
    of the actual treatment of the children and the chaos surrounding their lives
    was more critical to the court’s analysis than the children’s statements about
    those events.
    [¶19] Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found by a
    preponderance of the evidence that the children would be in circumstances of
    jeopardy in the mother’s care. See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4035, 4036 (2018); In re
    Children of Christine A., 
    2019 ME 57
    , ¶ 9, 
    207 A.3d 186
    ; In re Destiny T., 
    2009 ME 26
    , ¶ 14, 
    965 A.2d 872
    .
    The entry is:
    Judgment affirmed.
    Brittany M.R. Sawyer, Esq., Holmes Legal Group, LLC, Wells, for appellant
    mother
    Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office
    of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human
    Services
    Springvale District Court docket number PC-2019-18
    FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY