In re Adoption By Jessica M.
Decision Date | 06 October 2020 |
Docket Number | Docket: And-19-491 |
Citation | 239 A.3d 633 |
Parties | ADOPTION BY JESSICA M. et al. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Rory A. McNamara, Esq. (orally), Drake Law, LLC, Berwick, for appellant father
Matthew P. Mastrogiacomo, Esq. (orally), The Mastrogiacomo Law Office, PA, Lewiston, for appellant mother
Molly Watson Shukie, Esq. (orally), and Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Esq., Linnell, Choate, & Webber LLP, Auburn, for maternal aunt and uncle
Kristina Dougherty, Esq., amicus curiae pro se
Lauren Wille, Esq., Disability Rights Maine, Augusta, for amicus curiae Disability Rights Maine
Panel: MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and, CONNORS, JJ.
[¶1] The parents of a child appeal from a judgment of the Androscoggin County Probate Court (Dubois, J. ) terminating their parental rights in anticipation of adoption pursuant to 18-A M.R.S. § 9-204 (2017), on the petition of the child's maternal aunt and uncle.1 Both parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court's findings that they are unfit to parent the child and that termination of their parental rights is in the child's best interest. The father also contends that (1) his right to due process was violated because his appearance at the termination hearing was telephonic and (2) the court abused its discretion by considering a portion of the transcript of his federal criminal sentencing hearing. We affirm the judgment.
[¶2] On March 26, 2018, the aunt and uncle, who are the child's legal guardians, filed petitions for termination of the parents’ parental rights and for adoption of the child. See 18-A M.R.S. §§ 9-204, 9-301 (2017). They filed an amended petition for termination of parental rights in June 2018. The parents, both of whom were incarcerated at the time, objected, and the court appointed an attorney to represent each of them. In August 2018, after holding a pretrial conference, the court noted on the docket record that the father's attorney was to investigate whether the final hearing could be held in a District Court courtroom because "there [would] be issues with having both parents appear by video for the trial." In a request for approval of expanded work hours filed in December 2018, the father's attorney indicated that she "still need[ed] to ... schedule video attendance with" the federal correctional institution where the father was incarcerated.
[¶3] The court held the first two days of a three-day final hearing on April 10 and 11, 2019. The father appeared by telephone. At the beginning of the first day of the hearing, the father requested that the court continue the hearing to allow more time for him to arrange a video appearance in order to enhance the court's ability to assess his demeanor. The father indicated that the New Jersey prison where he was incarcerated had been unable to set up the technology necessary for a video appearance and that more time might facilitate that process. After he agreed that telephonic participation would suffice, at least during the testimony of some of the aunt and uncle's witnesses, the court denied his request for a continuance. The court permitted recesses as necessary for the father to confer privately with his attorney by telephone and ruled that it would keep the evidentiary record open in case video technology could be arranged at some point during the proceedings.2
[¶4] On July 16, 2019, the court sent the parties a notice setting August 13, 2019, as the date for the third day of the hearing.3 The notice stated, "If any party needs to participate telephonically or by video, you must get the necessary contact information to the Court by July 30, 2019, so that we may make the necessary arrangements." Nothing in the record indicates that the father provided this information to the court, and the third day of the hearing proceeded in the Probate Court. The father again requested a continuance, indicating that the federal prison had encountered technological problems that prevented an appearance by video. The court denied that motion and noted on the docket record that the "federal prison was unable to make video conferencing available for" the father.
[¶5] During the third day of the hearing, the aunt and uncle sought to admit in evidence the transcript of a January 2017 hearing at which the father had been sentenced in federal court after pleading guilty to a crime. The father objected. The parties and the court discussed whether portions of the transcript were subject to judicial notice or were otherwise admissible in evidence. The court first stated that the transcript was admitted "as it relates to the [federal] Court's findings placed on the record ... [f]or whatever weight that has." Then, after hearing the father's renewed objection, the court ruled that only the portion of the transcript constituting "an order of the [federal] court" would be admitted and that the transcript was admitted "conditional[ly]" because "there [was] an issue with respect to which portion ... [could] be construed as an order of the [federal] Court."
[¶6] After the hearing, the court entered a judgment terminating both parents’ parental rights to the child.4 The court made the following findings, which, except as noted, are supported by competent evidence in the record.
To continue reading
Request your trial