Submitted On Briefs: June 26, 2019
Thaddeus V. Day, Esq., Law Offices of Thaddeus V. Day,
P.L.L.C, Cumberland Center, 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
Panel:
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and
HUMPHREY, JJ.
PER
CURIAM
[¶1]
Haley L. appeals from a judgment entered by the District
Court (Portland, Eggert, J.) terminating her
parental rights to her child.[1] See 22 M.R.S. §
4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv) (2018). She
argues that the court erred in finding that she had been
provided proper notice of the hearing and in finding that the
Department of Health and Human Services had satisfied its
obligation to provide rehabilitation and reunification
services, and she challenges the court's determinations
of parental unfitness and the best interest of the child. We
affirm the judgment.
I.
BACKGROUND
[¶2]
In July 2017, the Department filed a petition for a child
protection order and preliminary protection order for the
child, then fourteen months old, and his two-month-old
brother. The petition alleged, and the accompanying affidavit
from the Department averred, that the child and his brother
were at risk of physical abuse or neglect after the brother
was admitted to the hospital with a life-threatening injury
he sustained while in his father's care. With respect to
the mother, the petition and affidavit further cited as bases
for protection the mother's untreated mental health
issues, her lack of follow-through with previously
recommended services, and the lack of safe and stable housing
for the family. The affidavit indicated that the mother, an
adult, was under the guardianship of her mother due to mental
health issues.
[¶3]
The court [Dobson, J.) immediately entered an order
of preliminary protection placing the children in the
Department's custody. In late July 2017, the child's
brother died, [2] and the court [Powers, J.)
dismissed that child as a party later in August. Soon after
the infant's death, the court [Eggert, J.)
entered an order, after the parents waived the opportunity
for a summary preliminary hearing, maintaining the
Department's custody of the child. See 22 M.R.S.
§4034(4) (2018).
[¶4]
In November 2017, the court entered a jeopardy order with the
parents' agreement. See 22 M.R.S. §
4035(2), (3), (4-A) (2018). Jeopardy was based on the brain
injury of the brother while in the father's care, the
parents' untreated mental health issues, the mother's
mental breakdown and ensuing hospitalization in September
2017, the father's previous domestic violence
convictions, previous child protection history regarding the
child, and the parents' recognition that they could not
provide a safe, stable home because they were homeless and
living in a tent. The court ordered the parents to
participate in mental health treatment, including any
recommended medication management, and to follow treatment
recommendations, establish housing suitable for
reunification, participate in a court ordered diagnostic
evaluation, and have contact with the child consistent with
the child's best interest. The permanency plan was
reunification with the parents.
[¶5]
In the rehabilitation and reunification plan signed by the
mother in November 2017, she agreed to address the reasons
for the child's removal and to eliminate jeopardy by
obtaining mental health treatment at the appropriate level of
care, exhibiting sustained mental health stability, and
providing a safe, sanitary, and stable living environment.
She agreed to complete outpatient mental health treatment,
participate in supervised visits, submit to psychiatric
medication management, and maintain secure housing. The
Department agreed to ensure the provision of outpatient
mental health and psychiatric treatment, a level-of-care
assessment, transportation support, and supervised
visitation.
[¶6]
In May 2018, the Department petitioned to terminate the
mother's parental rights based on her lack of consistent
progress toward any of the rehabilitation and reunification
goals. See 22 M.R.S. § 4052 (2018). The
petition was served in hand on both the mother and the
mother's guardian. See 22 M.R.S. § 4053
(2018). On May 25, 2018, the court entered an order that
provided notice of a trial management conference to be held
on September 4, 2018, and of a trial to be on the trailing
docket that would run from September 6 to 15, 2018.
[¶7]
The court sent a notice in early July 2018 stating that a
hearing on termination petition would be held on September 6,
2018, and that the parties must appear "in person or by
counsel." The notice did not mention the pretrial
conference already scheduled for September 4, 2018.
[¶8]
The court [Foster, J.) held the pretrial conference
on September 4, 2018, and the parents did not appear. The
court entered a judicial review and permanency planning order
and order terminating the parents' parental rights. The
court [Eggert, J.) vacated the termination judgment
upon the Department's motion in November 2018 because the
court's notice of the termination hearing had omitted
mention of the pretrial conference and had incorrectly stated
that the parents could appear at the termination hearing by
counsel.[3] In its order, the court scheduled a trial
management conference for ...