Docket: Ken-17-299
Submitted
On Briefs: January 11, 2018
Decided: January 23, 2018
Panel: ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE DANTE C. et al.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] The mother of Dante C. and Delia-Marie C. appeals from a
judgment of the District Court (Waterville, Stanfill, J.) terminating her parental
rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2) (2017). After
reviewing the evidence, we affirm.
[¶2] The court held a hearing on the Department’s petition for the
termination of the mother’s parental rights on June 14, 2017. Despite the fact
that she had been served with the petition to terminate her parental rights
and received notice of the hearing, the mother failed to appear at the
proceeding.
[¶3] The evidence presented at the termination hearing demonstrated
that the mother had not maintained meaningful contact or had any visitation
with the children since November 2016. The mother had shown a significant
lack of engagement with the reunification process throughout the case.
2
Following the January 2016 jeopardy order, the reunification plan required
that the mother address issues related to housing for the children, domestic
violence and her ability to protect the children from violence, and her
substance abuse and mental health issues. There was no evidence that the
mother engaged in any services to address those issues or that she secured
stable or appropriate housing for the children.
[¶4] After considering the testimony presented at the hearing and
reviewing the entirety of the record, the court found by clear and convincing
evidence that (1) the children have been abandoned by the mother; (2) the
mother is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and these
circumstances are unlikely to change within a time calculated to meet the
children’s needs; (3) the mother is unwilling or unable to take responsibility
for the children within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet their
needs; (4) the mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and
reunify with the children; and (5) termination of the mother’s parental rights
is in the best interests of the children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2). The
court entered its order terminating parental rights as to the mother on
3
June 23, 2017. The mother timely appealed the order pursuant to 22 M.R.S.
§ 4006 (2017) and M.R. App. P. 2(b)(3) (Tower 2016).1
[¶5] On August 25, 2017, pursuant to the process outlined in In re M.C.,
, counsel for the mother filed an appellate
brief containing only a statement of facts and procedural history, and a
statement that counsel believed that there are no arguable issues of merit for
an appeal. In an order dated August 31, 2017, we granted the mother an
enlargement of time to file a supplemental brief. The mother did not file a
supplemental brief,2 and we granted the Department’s motion requesting that
we consider the appeal without briefing from the Department.
[¶6] The record supports the court’s findings of parental unfitness as to
the mother. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(iv). Furthermore, there was
sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s findings and
discretionary determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights
1 This appeal was commenced before September 1, 2017, and therefore the restyled Maine
Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply. See M.R. App. P. 1.
2 Counsel for the mother made numerous attempts to contact the mother and to personally
serve the order granting the motion to permit supplemental briefing. The only communication
counsel received was a Facebook message, from an account believed to be the mother’s, stating: “I
am letting you know I am not going to file an appeal. The kids are happy and doing great so I’m
going to let it be.” Counsel made several attempts to contact the mother to determine whether this
statement was a stipulation to the dismissal of the appeal, but counsel was unable to make contact.
Because the Facebook message does not constitute an unambiguous stipulation to the dismissal of
the mother’s appeal, we consider the appeal.
4
was in the children’s best interests. See In re Caleb M.,
; see also 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Elyse M. Apantaku, Esq., Schneider & Brewer, Waterville, for appellant mother
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief
Waterville District Court docket number PC-2015-33
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY
