Submitted On Briefs: November 28, 2018
Christopher S. Berryment, Esq., Mexico, for appellant father.
The
Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief.
Panel:
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and
HUMPHREY, JJ.
PER
CURIAM.
[¶1]
Edward F. appeals from a judgment of the District Court
(Presque Isle, Roberts, J.) terminating his parental
rights to his three children.[1] We affirm the judgment.
[¶2]
In March 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services
filed a petition for preliminary protection and a child
protection petition with respect to the father's three
children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and
(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), and (iv) (2017). The petition alleged that
the children were in jeopardy from their father due to an
"immediate risk of serious harm due to threat of
physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment and
neglect." The court granted the Department's
petition for a preliminary protection order, and the children
were placed with the Department.
[¶3]
In September 2017, the court (Rushlau, J.) entered a
jeopardy order based on the father's issues with domestic
violence, substance abuse, and inappropriate physical force
used in discipline. The court's permanency planning order
included requirements that the father complete a mental
health assessment, substance abuse assessment, sex offender
risk evaluation, psychological evaluation, and an evaluation
for a batterer's intervention program. The father
participated in the mental health evaluation but refused to
engage in any other services.
[¶4]
The following January, the Department filed a petition for
termination of the father's parental rights. On June 11,
2018, the court (Roberts, J.) held a hearing on the
Department's petition. Notwithstanding proper notice
being provided to him, the father failed to appear at the
hearing. Counsel appointed to represent the father did appear
at the hearing.
[¶5]
On June 12, 2018, the court granted the Department's
petition to terminate the father's parental rights. Based
on the testimony presented at the hearing and other competent
evidence in the record, the court found by clear and
convincing evidence that (1) the father is unwilling or
unable to protect the children from jeopardy and these
circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is
reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs; (2)
the father failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate
and reunify with the children; and (3) termination of the
father's parental rights is in the best interests of the
children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a),
(b)(Y), and (iv).
[¶6]
The court based its decision to terminate the father's
rights on the following factual findings, all of which are
supported by competent evidence in the record.
The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence, that with
respect to the father, ... the State has met its burden of
proof with respect to subsections 1 and 4. [The father's]
relationship with [the mother] was marred by domestic
violence to a degree which would jeopardize the
children's safety. The arguments between the parents with
screaming, angry behaviors had an impact on the children.
[The father] used a belt on his children to a degree that was
excessive and abusive. [The father] became angry and
potentially violent when abusing alcohol.... The impact of
all this [including other forms of abuse] on the children has
been to cause delays developmentally. [The oldest and middle
child] have been diagnosed with [serious mental health
diagnoses] resulting from their violent home life. [The
father's] visits with the children were discontinued in
November of 2017, due to his aggressive behaviors and emails.
The Department made reasonable efforts to reunify and
rehabilitate the family. Those reasonable efforts regarding
the father consisted of requests that he engage in
assessments and counseling. [The father] attended a mental
health assessment, but declined to participate in the
recommended therapy. He refused to attend appointments for
assessments related to substance abuse, sex offender risk
evaluation or batterer's intervention. He indicated that
he would not participate in any services arranged by the
Department. He has exhibited quick frustration and anger
before the court. He has chosen not to engage in the services
that would enable him to be reunified with his children. His
failure to attend a TPR hearing demonstrates that his focus
[is] on combat with the Department rather than reunification
with his children. [2]
This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that DHHS
offered [the father] appropriate services and referred [him]
to providers. He was simply unwilling or unable to engage or
make changes. This court finds that there is nothing more
that DHHS could have done to assist [the father] in this
case.
[The mother] attends individual mental health therapy. She
has maintained employment. [The mother] is working with the
children's therapist to attempt to understand and meet
their emotional needs. [She] obtained a Protection from Abuse
Order regarding [the father] and has called law enforcement
twice regarding violations of the order. [The mother's]
efforts at reunification with her children can only progress
if [the father] is out of the ...