Submitted On Briefs: July 24, 2018
Pamela
S. Holmes, Esq., and Brittany Sawyer, Esq., Holmes Legal
Group, LLC, Wells, for appellant mother
Rubin
Guedalie Segal, Esq., Portland, for appellant father
Janet
T. Mills, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst.
Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for
appellee Department of Health and Human Services
Panel:
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM,
JJ.
PER
CURIAM.
[¶1]
Melissa F. and Taurus W. Sr. appeal from a judgment of the
District Court (Portland, Powers, /.) terminating
their parental rights to the children pursuant to 22 M.R.S.
§ 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv) (2017).
The mother and father challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the court's findings that they are
parentally unfit and that termination of parental rights is
in the best interests of the children. The mother further
contends that the court (1) was barred by res judicata from
taking evidence at the second termination hearing on issues
litigated at the first termination hearing; (2) abused its
discretion by denying her motion to proceed without counsel;
and (3) demonstrated bias against her and did not render a
fair judgment. We conclude that there is competent evidence
in the record supporting the court's findings regarding
the bases for the parents' unfitness and its
discretionary determination that termination of parental
rights is in the best interests of the children. The
mother's other contentions are unpersuasive. We affirm
the judgment.
I.
BACKGROUND
[¶2]
Following a four-day termination hearing that concluded on
December 14, 2017, the court issued a judgment dated January
10, 2018, in which it found by clear and convincing evidence
that the parents are unable or unwilling to protect the
children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them in a
reasonable time, they have failed to make a good faith effort
at rehabilitating themselves and reunifying with the
children, and that the termination of parental rights is in
the children's best interests. See 22 M.R.S.
§ 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv). The
court took judicial notice of its prior orders, evidence
presented in hearings that occurred between July and December
of 2017, and the reports of the guardian ad litem (GAL).
See In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66, ¶ 23, 159 A.3d
345. The court made the following findings:
[The parents] have clearly not tried to reunify in good
faith. [The father] has sporadically visited his children. He
has rarely attended any family team meetings and court
conferences/hearings. [The father] has largely deferred to
[the mother] to deal with this case. [The mother] has long
made personal, cruel, and unhelpful comments to [a]
caseworker . . ., which harmed their relationship, has
refused to divulge the family's whereabouts for several
months in late 2017, has failed to attend the properly
noticed September 11, 2017 team meeting, and then attended
the November 30, 2017 meeting only if the GAL left. She has
also lied to DHHS about rental payments made, and the
children's whereabouts for hours during the August 28,
2017 park visit, which led to suspended visits. She failed to
attend numerous court-ordered drug testing sessions, and she
did not attend mental health counseling until October 11,
2017, going only three times. [The mother] has done well with
supervised visits themselves in large part. Neither parent
has signed the three reunification plans and neither has met
the goals or remedied jeopardy. [The mother] has chosen to
impede proper reunification efforts due to her distrust of
DHHS and the GAL. The parents have largely failed to comply
with the court's orders of July 19, 2017 and October 12,
2017.
[The parents] have likewise been unable for about 32 months
to take responsibility for the children's needs in any
reasonable time that meets their needs and have not been able
to protect their children from jeopardy in a reasonable time
which meets their needs. There is no likelihood that this
situation will change in the near future as demonstrated by
their performance over the last 32 months. Deprivation of
proper shelter for children aged 7 to 6th grade is included
in the definition of jeopardy in 22 M.R.S. §[]4002(6).
Despite having the ability to work and earn income, the
parents have regularly amassed significant rental arrearages
and have been evicted three times. They have claimed twice to
be obtaining new housing in Casco, and twice since the summer
of 2017 have failed to do so. They have a history of two
failed trial placements and unsuitable living situations that
include several motels and recently a friend's home in
Westbrook. Chaos at home has been prevalent and progress has
not. There is no current prospect for another home placement
with visits still supervised and housing uncertain. Providing
suitable and stable housing is a primary parental function
necessary to allow children to grow and flourish. [The
mother], and [the father] by deference to her, have chosen to
blame others and failed to recognize and resolve their
parenting deficits since the court's July 2017 order on
the first termination petition. That order gave them more
time to reunify, which has not happened for good reasons
outlined above. These parents could have focused their
energies on solving housing instability and other parenting
deficits, which they have not done.
BEST INTEREST
As to the second issue of "best interest[s]" of the
children, the court also finds DHHS has proven by clear and
convincing evidence that termination of both parents'
rights to the three children is in their best interest[s].
The facts found [above] also support this conclusion,
including the ...