Submitted On Briefs: September 27, 2017
W. Andrus, Esq., and Lynn J. Madison, Esq., Andrus Law, LLC,
Brunswick, for appellant father.
Richter, Esq., Richter Law, LLC, Gardiner, for appellant
T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty.
Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee
Department of Health and Human Services.
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and
The parents of Keegan M. appeal from a judgment of the
District Court (West Bath, Mathews, J.) terminating
their parental rights to the child pursuant to 22 M.R.S.
§ 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii)
(2016). The father challenges the courts factual findings in
general,  and the mother argues that the Department
did not provide the services necessary for her to reunify
with the child. Because the evidence supports the courts
findings and discretionary determinations, we affirm the
Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found,
by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents were
unwilling or unable to protect Keegan from jeopardy within a
time reasonably calculated to meet his needs and were unable
to take responsibility for him within a time reasonably
calculated to meet his needs, and that termination of each
parents parental rights was in Keegans best interest. See
id.; In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66, ¶ 27, 159 A.3d
345. The court based this determination on the following
findings of fact.
After the jeopardy court (Field, J.) found, in July
2015, that Keegan was in jeopardy due to "unsanitary,
unsafe, and unstable living conditions, and lack of
supervision, " the parents reunification plans required
that they participate in numerous services including
psychological evaluations, case management, medication
management, and counseling, and that they obtain "safe
and stable housing."
By the time of the termination hearing, Keegan, then six
years old, showed signs of significant recovery from the
serious harm he had suffered while in the care of his
parents. Regarding the parents participation in and
compliance with the reunification plan, the termination court
found as follows:
Until fall of 2016 [the mother] failed to obtain any
counseling, case management services or consistent med
[The mother] places the blame for her failed performance as
it relates to therapy, med management and case management on
the Department. The evidence record indicates
otherwise....The Court does not find [the mother]s
explanation for her failure to comply with the Departments
recommendations as credible.
. . . [The father] has not to date participated in any case
management, med management or counseling. The Department
repeatedly requested [the father] to seek the services at
family team meeting and court ...