In re Haylie W. et al. — 2017 ME 157

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 	Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 	2017 ME 157
Docket: 	Ken-17-90
Submitted
On Briefs: June 29, 2017
Decided: 	July 13, 2017
Panel: 	SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
IN RE HAYLIE W. et al.
SAUFLEY, C.J.
[¶1] 	The mother of Haylie W. and Lexie W. appeals from a judgment of
the District Court (Augusta, Nale, J.) terminating her parental rights to the
children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii),
and (iv) (2016). 	She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
court’s findings that the children cannot wait for permanency and that she
failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify. The mother also
argues that the court should have ordered a permanency guardianship instead
of 	terminating 	her 	fundamental 	parental 	rights. 	Because 	the 	evidence
supports the court’s findings and discretionary determinations, we affirm the
judgment.
[¶2] 	Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found, by
clear and convincing evidence, that the mother is unable to protect the
children 	from 	jeopardy 	or 	take 	responsibility 	for 	them 	within 	a 	time

2
reasonably calculated to meet their needs, that the mother failed to make a
good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify, and that termination of her
parental rights is in the children’s best interests. 	See id.; In re Robert S., 2009
ME 18, ¶ 15, 966 A.2d 894. The court based these determinations on findings
of fact that include the following:
The children of mother . . . came into State custody because
of mother’s serious drug use that jeopardized the health and
safety of her two minor children. 	The mother admits that her
drug use made her unable to safely take care of her two children.
The mother’s abuse of crack cocaine, heroin, marijuana,
illicit 	use 	of 	Oxycodone, 	Vicodin, 	and 	Percocet, 	as 	well 	as
non-prescribed use of Suboxone and Subutex have caused the
minor children to be born drug affected and to be exposed to
substance abuse throughout their lives.
The mother was offered services on multiple occasions to
help her with the issues that prevented the safe return of her
children.
The Court finds that the mother failed to participate in
reunification services offered to her, failed to take advantage of a
referral to Family Treatment Drug Court, failed to otherwise
engage in services to address her significant substance abuse
problem, failed to maintain contact with the Department for the
purpose of scheduling month-to-month meetings and scheduling
a family team meeting, failed to comply with the Department’s
requirements for random drug screening, and failed to regularly
attend scheduled weekly visits with Haylie and Lexie, mother’s
minor children.
The Court finds that these facts were little changed at each
Judicial Review Hearing. 	The Court finds that the testimony of

3
each of the three caseworkers assigned to help the mother in
efforts to rehabilitate and reunite to be very credible. Mother did
not engage in the services offered and mother continued to use
illegal drugs.
The 	court 	finds 	that 	the 	mother 	understood 	why 	her
children were removed from her custody and what was required
of her to alleviate jeopardy. The Court finds that the mother tried
on many occasions to get and stay clean of drugs. 	She relapsed
each time.
The court finds testimony of . . . mother’s substance abuse
counselor to be credible. 	[The counselor] believes that mother
has continued to relapse. 	The Court finds that [the counselor] is
unable to provide a time frame within which mother might be
addiction free. 	The court finds that [the counselor] believes it is
ultimately up to [the mother] as to how successful she will be and
how long it may take.
The 	Court 	finds 	that 	[the 	counselor] 	believes 	that 	six
months of being off drugs is a “Good Start” to recovery. 	The start
time 	would 	be 	the 	middle 	of 	January 	(last 	reported 	use 	of
drugs). . . . 	The court finds that because of mother’s history of
relapsing it is very likely that mother’s recovery will be one of
many months.
The Court finds that [the mother] struggled throughout this
case with substance abuse. 	The rehabilitation and reunification
plan made it very clear that substance abuse was a very serious
concern and it needed to be addressed. 	The court finds that all
three caseworkers made it very clear to the mother that her
substance 	abuse 	is 	a 	very 	serious 	issue 	and 	needed 	her
attention. . . .
. . . .
The mother loves her children. 	The mother is asking for
more time and another chance. . . . 	As this Court has stated on

4
many occasions, substance abuse recovery is a marathon, not a
sprint. 	Haylie and Lexie simply cannot wait any longer; they are
entitled to permanency now.
. . . .
The court also finds that termination is in the best interest
of these two children.
[¶3] 	Each of the three independent grounds of parental unfitness that
the court found is supported by these findings regarding the effects of the
mother’s insufficient adherence to substance abuse treatment on her capacity
to keep the children safe and take responsibility for them in time to meet their
needs. 	See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv); In re Michaela C., 2002
ME 159, ¶ 17, 809 A.2d 1245. 	The court did not rush to judgment because of
the mother’s addictions. 	To the contrary, the court specifically found that,
after the girls were removed from the mother’s care, the mother was offered
multiple opportunities to regain sobriety but failed to make the necessary
effort to follow through with treatment.
[¶4] 	The 	court’s 	findings also support 	its 	determination that 	the
termination of the mother’s parental rights—not the creation of a permanency
guardianship, which would allow the mother to petition the court for rights of
contact or for termination of the guardianship, see 22 M.R.S. § 4038-C(3), (6)
(2016)—is in the best interest of each of her young children, who have now

5
been living with their grandmother for almost two years of their young lives
and need a safe, permanent home. 	See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4003(4), 4050(2)-(3),
4055(1)(B)(2)(a) (2016); In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18, ¶¶ 12-13, 154 A.3d
1199; In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 23-30, 889 A.2d 297. 	The girls are
fortunate 	to 	have 	the 	love 	and 	support 	of 	their 	grandmother 	as 	the
Department moves on with planning a permanent home for the girls. 	The
court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating the mother’s parental
rights.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Nathaniel Seth Levy, Esq., Brunswick, for appellant mother
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and
Human Services
Augusta District Court docket number PC-2015-59
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY