on Briefs July 23, 2015.
December 9, 2015.
B. Rowden, Esq., and Jared S. Brewer, Esq., Schneider ¶
Brewer, Waterville, for appellant father.
T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty.
Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for the
Department of Health and Human Services.
S. Brewer, Esq., for appellant father.
Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Department of Health and
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
[¶1] This is the second appeal in this child
protection matter. In the first appeal, we affirmed the order
of the District Court (Portland, Powers, J. )
finding that M.E.'s father had placed her in
circumstances of jeopardy to her health or welfare. In re
M.E., 2014 ME 98, ¶ 19, 97 A.3d 1082; see
22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2015). The father now challenges the
court's termination of his parental rights to M.E. on
grounds that the procedures undertaken by the court violated
his due process rights, and that there is insufficient
evidence in the record to support the court's judgment.
We disagree and affirm the judgment.
[¶2] Our decision in In re M.E.
contains a detailed recitation of the facts and procedure up
to that point, 2014 ME 98, ¶ ¶ 2-14, 97 A.3d 1082.
To avoid duplication, we focus on the court's findings,
which are supported by the record, regarding the events that
have occurred since In re M.E. was issued.
[¶3] The father has continued to discount
the severity of the child's medical problems, refused to