In re Zarianna C. et al. — 2018 ME 11

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 	Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 	2018 ME 11
Docket: 	Ken-17-363
Submitted
On Briefs: January 11, 2018
Decided: 	January 23, 2018
Panel: 	ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE ZARIANNA C. et al.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] 	The father of Zarianna C., Zariyah C., and Zaylah C. appeals from a
judgment of the District Court (Waterville, Stanfill, J.) terminating his parental
rights to the children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a),
(b)(i)-(ii) (2017).1 After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence
supports 	the 	court’s 	finding 	of 	parental 	unfitness 	and 	its 	discretionary
determination that termination is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly,
we affirm the judgment.
[¶2] 	Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found by
clear and convincing evidence that the father (1) is unwilling or unable to
protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to
meet their needs and (2) is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for them
within that time frame. 	See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). 	The court
1 The mother consented to a termination of her parental rights and is not a party to this appeal.

2
also found that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s
best interests. 	See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a). 	We review the factual
findings 	supporting 	the 	unfitness 	determination 	for 	clear 	error, 	see
In re Logan M., 2017 ME 23, ¶ 3, 155 A.3d 430, and apply the same standard to
the factual findings supporting the best interest determination, although we
review the court’s ultimate conclusion that termination is in the children’s
best interests “for an abuse of discretion, viewing the facts, and the weight to
be given them, through the trial court’s lens,” and giving the court’s judgment
“substantial deference,” In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66, ¶ 33, 159 A.3d 345
(quotation marks omitted).
[¶3] The court based its determination on the following findings of fact:
This 	case 	began 	in 	November 	2015, 	but 	the 	family’s
involvement with the Department started long before that. 	The
first case was filed in December 2011 and involved only Zarianna
because the other two girls had not yet been born. [T]he case was
dismissed . . . after some two years with successful reunification
with the mother. 	The second case involved both Zarianna and
Zariyah, and was filed August 22, 2014, approximate[ly] 8 months
later. 	That case was dismissed after about 14 months, in October
2015. 	The dismissal was ordered after entry of a Parental Rights
Judgment which provided for the girls to live with their mother
and have supervised visits with their father. 	[The father] was
incarcerated at the time.
This case was filed November 6, 2015, only one month after
the last case was dismissed. 	[The current foster parents] have
been the foster placement for all three cases. 	At this point,

3
Zarianna has lived with them almost 5 years of her life and
Zariyah for almost 3 years of her life. 	Zaylah has lived with the
[foster parents] since she was 9 months old and she is now over
two years old. 	In short, all three girls have lived with the [foster
parents] the majority of their short lives.
The Jeopardy Order in this case found that the girls were in
jeopardy 	based 	on 	[the 	father]’s 	“past 	extensive 	and 	severe
substance abuse issues; past perpetration of domestic violence,
continued 	criminal 	activity 	and 	incarcerations; 	and 	recent
incarceration that prevents [the father] from being a caregiver to
the children.” 	[The father] has never been the primary caregiver
for the children, and did not engage in substantial reunification
services or efforts during either of the first two cases.
After years of failing to appropriately take care of the girls,
[the father] began to try to make changes in his life. He has felony
drug convictions from 2009 and 2010, but not since then. 	He has
three OUI convictions, in 2009, 2013, and 2014. He went through
Drug Court. 	He has a significant substance abuse history that has
made him unavailable for the children. 	He started substance
abuse and [dual] diagnosis counseling in August 2016 but was
discharged for missing appointments. 	He had started again with
another counselor by the time of the hearing, but had only seen
that counselor 4 times and was also suspended for his attendance.
He claims he no longer uses any drugs and has not had a drink
since his birthday in September 2016. 	But, he tested positive for
alcohol on October 26, 2016[,] and tested positive for cocaine on
January 31, May 18 and May 31, 2017. 	He continues to use
marijuana regularly. He has a medical marijuana card but obtains
his marijuana off the street. 	Indeed, his explanation for the failed
drug tests is that his marijuana must have been tainted, an
explanation the court rejects. 	Thus, although he seems to have
made good progress with his substance abuse, he clearly has not
obtained consistent sobriety.
[The 	father] 	consistently 	denied 	any 	domestic 	violence
history and therefore did not address that issue. 	Despite that

4
denial, he recently began a certified batterer’s intervention group
and was about 12 weeks into the 48-week program at [the] time
of trial. 	The court is persuaded by the evidence, including prior
findings, 	Zarianna’s 	statements 	and 	Zarianna’s 	reaction
(nightmares with fear of being hit) that there was violence . . .
between [the father] and [the mother] and that at least the older
two children were also victims. 	It does not appear [that the
father] has taken responsibility for those actions.
Although 	affectionate 	and 	loving, 	[the 	father] 	has 	not
demonstrated that he is able to manage all three children as their
primary 	caretaker. 	He 	has 	struggled 	to 	visit 	consistently.
[Supervised visits 	were] 	discontinued in January or February
because of missed sessions. 	The visits are chaotic, and [the
father] is reluctant to follow through with direction or to set
boundaries. 	He enrolled in a parenting class (Peaceful Parenting
of Young Children) but only attended two out [of] the three
workshops in November 2016.
The issue presented to the court is whether [the father] has
the ability to meet the needs of the children—to protect them
from serious harm and take responsibility for them—within an
appropriate time frame. 	[The father] has progressed in the last
year and is addressing the issues that exist in his case, and he has
come a long way. 	Nonetheless, the court is persuaded by clear
and convincing evidence that he does not have the ability to
provide a consistent, safe, stable and predictable environment for
the girls, which is the environment these children must have. . . .
Indeed, [the father] himself has acknowledged that there is still
work to be done.
The 	court 	is 	also 	persuaded 	by 	clear 	and 	convincing
evidence that [the father] is not able to do what he needs to do
within a time reasonably calculated to meet the needs of the
children. . . . This case has been pending for well over 19 months,
and follows shortly after another episode of care for 14 months,
which followed an episode of care for 2 years. 	Reunification
services have been available for years. The children have all been

5
in foster care for the majority of their young lives. 	Zarianna in
particular is very anxious and “just wants it to be over” and to be
reassured she can stay with the [the foster parents], the place and
family she calls home. 	Permanency is of the utmost critical
importance for these children, and they cannot wait any longer.
. . . .
The [foster parents] would adopt the girls if they are freed
for adoption. 	The children have lived with the [foster parents]
most of their lives. They are very attached and bonded with them.
They seek out [the foster parents] for all their needs. 	Indeed, it
can be hard for the younger children to separate from their foster
parents. 	Zarianna is the only one old enough to express a
preference, and she has clearly and repeatedly stated that she
wants to stay where she is. 	Given the strong public policy
favoring permanency for children, the court has no difficulty in
finding that termination is clearly in the children’s best interest.
Zarianna, Zariyah and Zaylah cannot wait any longer; they are
entitled to permanency now.
(Citations omitted).
[¶4] 	Given these findings, all of which are supported by competent
evidence in the record, the court did not err in its determination of unfitness,
nor did it err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the
father’s parental rights, with a 	permanency plan of 	adoption, is in the
children’s best interests. 	See In re Logan M., 2017 ME 23, ¶ 3, 155 A.3d 430;
In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.

6
Jason R. Ranger, Esq., Lewiston, for appellant father
The Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief
Waterville District Court docket number PC-2015-34
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY