In re Children of Loretta M.

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to three of her children, holding that the court did not clearly err in finding at least one ground of parental unfitness by clear and convincing and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination was in the children's best interests.

The district court terminated Mother's parental rights to three of her children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the express findings the court made were sufficient to support its determination to terminate Mother's parental rights.

Download PDF

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2020 ME 121 Docket: Wal-20-36 Submitted On Briefs: September 29, 2020 Decided: October 15, 2020 Panel: MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. IN RE CHILDREN OF LORETTA M. PER CURIAM [¶1] Loretta M. appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court (Belfast, Davis, J.) terminating her parental rights to three of her children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv) (2020).1 Contrary to the mother’s contention, on this record the court did not clearly err in finding at least one ground of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, nor did the court abuse its discretion in concluding that termination was in the children’s best interests. See In re Children of Jason C., 2020 ME 86, ¶¶ 7, 10, --- A.3d ---. [¶2] Although we affirm the judgment, we note that in its termination order the court, in addition to making express factual findings pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52(a), discussed the evidence at length rather than making actual 1 The judgment also terminated the father’s parental rights; he has not appealed. 2 findings regarding other facts. The court prefaced many parts of that discussion with the phrases “[a]ccording to [the witness] . . .”; “[t]he court heard testimony from [the witness concerning] . . .”; “[the witness] testified that . . .”; “[the witness] reported . . .”; and the like. We recently held, and we now reemphasize, that such references to the evidence are not “express factual findings” that may support a trial court’s judgment because “[a]lthough the court described the testimony of the . . . witnesses at length, it did not state what testimony it believed or what findings it made on the basis of that testimony.” Klein v. Klein, 2019 ME 85, ¶ 7, 208 A.3d 802. [¶3] That said, in this case the express findings that the court did make were sufficient to support its determination to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. Sean Ociepka, Esq., Ociepka & Burnett, P.A., Belfast, 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 Belfast District Court docket number PC-2016-3 For Clerk Reference Only

Primary Holding

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the district court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to three of her children, holding that the court did not clearly err in finding at least one ground of parental unfitness by clear and convincing and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination was in the children's best interests.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.