In re Magdalena F., 080916 MESC, Aro-16-12

Docket Nº:Aro-16-12
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:IN RE MAGDALENA F. et al.
Attorney:Matthew A. Hunter, Esq., Caribou, for appellant father John W. Tebbetts, Esq., Law Office of Christine M. Smith, Presque Isle, for appellant mother Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sarah Glidden, Stud. Atty., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for app...
Judge Panel:Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
Case Date:August 09, 2016
Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
 
FREE EXCERPT

2016 ME 125

IN RE MAGDALENA F. et al.

No. Aro-16-12

Supreme Court of Maine

August 9, 2016

          Submitted On Briefs: July 20, 2016

          Matthew A. Hunter, Esq., Caribou, for appellant father

          John W. Tebbetts, Esq., Law Office of Christine M. Smith, Presque Isle, for appellant mother

          Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sarah Glidden, Stud. Atty., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services

          Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

          PER CURIAM

         [¶1] The mother and father of Magdalena F., Rhiannon F., and Robert F. appeal from a judgment of the District Court (Caribou, Soucy, J.) terminating their parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2) (2015). We affirm the judgment.[1]

         [¶2] In a judgment issued in January 2016 following a three-day hearing held in July and August 2015, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents have failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children and that termination is in the best interest of each child. See id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(iv). The court also found that neither parent is willing and able to protect the children from jeopardy and that these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the childrens needs; that the mother has been unwilling and unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the childrens needs; and that the father acknowledged that he is not presently able to take responsibility for the children.2 See id. §4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii).

         [¶3] The court made the following factual findings, which are supported by competent evidence in the record. In re Hannah S., 2016 ME 32, ¶3, 133A.3d590.

         [¶4] In February 2014, the Department initiated this child protection proceeding because of parental neglect and the threat of neglect. The children have been in the custody of the Department since that time, and in fact the children previously were in the Departments custody from April 2010 to March 2012 for the same reasons....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP