In re Carlos C.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his child, determining that Father was parentally unfit within the meaning of the child protection statutes and that termination was in the child’s best interest. Father appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s determinations. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence supported the court’s ultimate finding of parental unfitness; and (2) given the evidence in the record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Download PDF
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2016 ME 179 Docket: Yor-16-251 Submitted On Briefs: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 13, 2016 Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ. IN RE CARLOS C. PER CURIAM [¶1] The father of Carlos C. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Biddeford, Foster, J.) terminating his parental rights to the child. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2015). The father argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s determinations that he is parentally unfit within the meaning of the child protection statutes and that termination is in the child’s best interest. We affirm.1 [¶2] First, there is competent evidence in the record to support the court’s findings, to the clear and convincing standard of proof, that the father is “unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably 1 At our request, the guardian ad litem provided us with copies of two reports that were missing from the record on appeal. The parties agree that these are accurate copies of the reports that were filed with the trial court during the termination proceedings. We now consider the record on appeal to be complete. 2 calculated to meet the child’s needs,” that he is “unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs,” and that he “failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child.” 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b); see In re Cameron Z., 2016 ME 162, ¶¶ 16-18, --- A.3d ---. [¶3] These findings of parental unfitness are supported by evidence cited in the court’s judgment, including evidence of the father’s ongoing substance abuse, his participation in reunification services that was “less than consistent,” and his “very superficial” insight into the child’s significant special needs. As the court found, for example, while this child protection case was pending, the father remained out of touch with the Department of Health and Human Services caseworker for significant periods of time despite multiple attempts the caseworker made to reach him using contact information he provided; he twice failed to attend intake sessions for a domestic violence program before finally beginning to participate in it; two months before the termination hearing, he refused to take a drug test; he quit two substance abuse programs before entering into a different program several months before the termination hearing; despite his counselor’s recommendation, he has refused to participate in group addiction programs; he has continually 3 relapsed, including using unprescribed Suboxone as recently as the week before the termination hearing and then invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege at trial when asked about the circumstances of that and other illegal drug-related activity; and although he is in the “early stages” of recovery, he still has not “really accepted that his substance abuse constitutes a significant barrier to reunification.” This evidence, combined with the record as a whole, supports the court’s ultimate finding of parental unfitness. [¶4] Second, given the evidence in the record, the court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination is in the child’s best interest. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a); In re J.V., 2015 ME 163, ¶ 13, 129 A.3d 958; In re C.P., 2013 ME 57, ¶ 16, 67 A.3d 558. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. On the briefs: Brian D. Burke, Esq., Fairfield & Associates, P.A., Lyman, for appellant father Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services Biddeford District Court docket number PC-2014-65 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
