In re Child of Jasmine B. — 2020 ME 62

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 	Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 	2020 ME 62
Docket: 	Cum-19-416
Submitted
On Briefs: May 4, 2020
Decided: 	May 12, 2020
Panel: 	MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ.
IN RE CHILD OF JASMINE B.
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Jasmine B. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland,
Eggert, J.) finding that her child is in circumstances of jeopardy pursuant to
22 M.R.S. § 4035(2) (2020) and ordering that the child remain in the custody
of the Department of Health and Human Services. 	She argues that the
evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding that the child is in
jeopardy. We affirm the judgment.
[¶2] 	The Department sought a child protection order and preliminary
protection order for the child, who was then two years old, on May 24, 2019.
The Department’s petition alleged that the child was at risk of serious harm
due to the mother’s volatility, including her violent and erratic behavior, and
her lack of safe and stable housing. 	A Department employee’s affidavit filed
with the petition also recounted the Department’s two-year history with the
mother, including several instances of the mother placing the child in unsafe

2
situations. 	The court (Stanfill, J.) entered a preliminary order that same day,
placing the child in the Department’s custody. 	In early June of 2019, after a
contested summary preliminary hearing, the court (Cashman, J.) entered an
order continuing the preliminary protection order in effect and noting that the
mother “had two mental health-related episodes” over the previous two
months, which resulted in “hospital visits for evaluations,” and had “made
statements of self-harm and was not in a position to care for [the child].”
See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(4) (2020).
[¶3] The court (Eggert, J.) conducted a contested jeopardy hearing over
two days in September of 2019. 	Based on the evidence presented at that
hearing, by order dated September 12, 2019, the court determined that the
child was in circumstances of jeopardy.1 	See 22 M.R.S. § 4002(1), (6) (2020).
The mother timely appealed. 	See 22 M.R.S. § 4006 (2020); M.R. App. P.
2B(c)(1).
[¶4] 	The mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the court’s finding that the child is in circumstances of jeopardy. 	We review
the court’s 	factual 	findings 	for 	clear error 	and 	will 	affirm its 	jeopardy
determination 	“unless 	there 	is 	no 	competent 	record 	evidence 	that 	can
1 The court also entered a jeopardy order as to the father on grounds of abandonment; he does
not appeal from that order.

3
rationally be understood to establish as more likely than not that the child
was 	in 	circumstances 	of 	jeopardy 	to 	his 	or 	her 	health 	and 	welfare.”
In re Children of Troy H., 2019 ME 154, ¶ 5, 218 A.3d 750 (quotation marks
omitted).
[¶5] The court made the following findings of fact, which are supported
by competent record evidence. See id.
[The 	m]other 	has 	had 	great 	difficulty 	managing 	her
emotions both before DHHS involvement and since the filing of
this petition. She has threatened to commit suicide when she has
been frustrated which would pose significant risks to [the child].
She has real anger issues which cause her to react volubly against
others and to threaten to give up as it is too hard. 	[The child]
would not be safe in her care until she has learned to control her
emotions and to recognize the impact of her actions on [the child]
and others . . . .
[¶6] 	These findings are supported by substantial 	evidence 	of 	the
mother’s 	erratic 	and 	unsafe 	behavior, 	including 	testimony 	regarding
threatening text messages the mother had sent to the relative currently caring
for the child; the mother’s violent outbursts at another relative with whom
she had been staying, including “banging her head in the wall that eventually
created a hole” and backing her car into the relative’s car; and threats the
mother 	made 	to 	Department 	employees, 	including 	statements 	that
“sometimes she can control her mental health issues, but not always” and that

4
“people like [her] were the reason why there’s shootings.” 	Contrary to the
mother’s contentions, the court did not err in finding that returning the child
to the mother’s custody would subject the child to a threat of serious harm.2
See 22 M.R.S. § 4002(6); In re Child of Tiffany F., 2018 ME 137, ¶ 5, 195 A.3d
84.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Jason A. MacLean, Esq., Bridgton, for appellant mother
Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Zack Paakkonen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and
Human Services
Portland District Court docket number PC-2019-28
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY
2 The court’s finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the
child, including “referral for counseling, arranging family team meetings, providing regular
visitation, and caseworker services,” is also fully supported by the record. 	See 22 M.R.S.
§ 4036-B(3) (2020); In re Children of Travis G., 2019 ME 20, ¶ 1 n.1, 201 A.3d 1224; In re Dakota P.,
2005 ME 2, ¶¶ 11-14, 863 A.2d 280.