In re Guardianship Stevens
| Decision Date | 18 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. Pen–12–537. |
| Citation | 2014 ME 25,86 A.3d 1197 |
| Parties | GUARDIANSHIP OF Zacharia Hartley STEVENS. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kirk D. Bloomer, Esq., Bloomer Law Office, P.A., Bangor, on the briefs and argued, for appellant Kristy Lynn Bouchard Hill.
Barbara A. Cardone, Esq., Lanham Blackwell, P.A., Bangor, on the briefs and argued, for appellees Linda and Gordon Walls.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.
[¶ 1] This appeal causes us to consider the scope of the Probate Court's discretion regarding transitional arrangements to reunite a child under a guardianship with his biological parent. Kristy Lynn Bouchard Hill appeals from a judgment entered in the Penobscot County Probate Court ( Woodcock, J.) denying her petition to terminate the guardianship of her son, Zacharia. Because we conclude that the court erred in denying Hill's petition without providing for transitional arrangements to restore Zacharia to Hill's custody, we vacate the judgment.
[¶ 2] Zacharia was born to Kristy Hill and Benjamin Stevens in January 2009. 1 Hill was transient at the time of Zacharia's birth, and Zacharia soon came to live with Linda and Gordon Walls, Hill's grandparents. The Wallses became temporary guardians of Zacharia in May 2009, and Zacharia has resided with them ever since. Hill saw Zacharia infrequently during the first year of his life, and in March 2010, with Hill's consent, the court appointed the Wallses as full guardians and granted Hill visitation rights. Hill did not see Zacharia from about April of 2010 until February of 2011, when she filed a petition to terminate the guardianship.
[¶ 3] After Hill petitioned to terminate the guardianship, a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed and ultimately submitted three reports to the court regarding Hill's petition.2 The first report, issued in June 2011, concluded that Hill was unfit to regain custody of Zacharia due to her inappropriate parenting methods, her lying to the GAL, and her continued contact with her mother, who had been living with a convicted sex offender. The GAL expressed concern about Hill's “ability to keep Zacharia safe ... and about her ability in general to parent Zacharia.”
[¶ 4] Following the submission of her first report, the GAL provided a set of recommendations for Hill, including substance abuse and mental health counseling, parenting classes, and regular supervised visits with Zacharia. The GAL's second and third reports, submitted in March and October of 2012, detailed Hill's full compliance with the recommendations and the positive steps Hill had taken to prepare for reunification with Zacharia. In spite of Hill's efforts and the GAL's recommendation that her visits with Zacharia be increased, the reports noted that the Wallses had “stonewalled” Hill's attempts at reunification by cancelling visits and making Zacharia unavailable. While the GAL preferred for Zacharia to remain in a limited guardianship with increased visitation by Hill while Hill continued counseling and parenting services, the GAL felt that terminating the guardianship was the only option given the Wallses' refusal to facilitate a more gradual transition. Accordingly, the GAL's third report concluded that terminating the guardianship was in Zacharia's best interest.
[¶ 5] On October 4, 2012, the court held a hearing on Hill's petition for termination of the guardianship. At the hearing, the GAL testified, consistent with her reports, that the relationship between the Wallses and Hill had made it unlikely that a gradual transition of Zacharia to Hill's custody would occur as long as a guardianship remained in effect. Accordingly, the GAL recommended terminating the guardianship so that Hill could voluntarily work with parenting services providers and the Wallses to transition Zacharia to her custody.
[¶ 6] The court also heard testimony from the Wallses, who expressed their openness to Hill visiting Zacharia and did not dispute that Hill was capable of providing for Zacharia's physical needs. The Wallses were instead concerned that Zacharia had begun experiencing severe anxiety since starting regular supervised visits with Hill. The Wallses testified that Zacharia was afraid of visiting Hill and had developed stuttering and sleeping problems since his visits with her began. Linda Walls testified:
Q You have concerns about him going to Kristy's home for visits, correct?
A I have concerns about him going there for a visit because Zacharia has never been away from home and, just like now, with all these visits at NOE [a social services provider] and he has to go to counseling at—he doesn't want to go anywhere now. He just wants to stay at home. I think he would do better—I have—I would like to see him, in time, go there to visit at her house, but I would like to see it when he is old enough to understand where he's going and want to go. I don't want him to have to go and do something. I want him to not have to be afraid everyday that I'm going to have to go here or I'm going to have to go there. I would like to have him want to go and be comfortable to go there.
Q And if he wanted to go, you would support his—
A If he wanted to go, I would be happy to take him.
Q And would you support his working with the [parenting] service providers?
A Yes, I would.
Q If he wanted to?
A And I told Kristy that.
Q And how do you feel about Zacharia developing a bond with Kristy and her family?
A I have no problem with that. We are family. We are all family. She's my granddaughter. We're family.
[¶ 7] The court heard similar testimony from Verna Boyington, Zacharia's mental health therapist, who was presented as a witness by the Wallses. Boyington testified that she had observed Zacharia's anxiety when he was separated from the Wallses during visits with Hill, and that the child recognized the Wallses, not Hill, as his parents. The court also received in evidence a report prepared by Boyington opining that separating Zacharia from the Wallses could result in severe and irreversible attachment problems for the child, such as reactive attachment disorder. Boyington also testified, however, that “Zacharia needs to establish a relationship with his biological mom,” and her report recommended transitional services for Zacharia under a continued guardianship:
[I]f Zacharia remains with Linda and Gordon and the adults all work together, attending training, going to counseling, [parenting] services are implemented and Zacharia begins to have home visits with his biological mother and family, Zacharia would then be able to establish a real connection to his other family. It is then that I believe the chances of everyone winning are high ... especially for this wonderful little three-year-old boy, named Zacharia.
[¶ 8] Finally, Hill testified regarding the steps she had taken to prepare for reunification with Zacharia and her intent ion to keep Zacharia in counseling to help with his transition. While Hill recognized that the transition would not be easy for Zacharia, she did not believe that the child's attachment to the Wallses would “be a problem.” Hill's testimony also revealed that she was unfamiliar with various details of Zacharia's life and that she had never been with Zacharia for more than two hours at a time.
[¶ 9] On November 1, 2012, the Probate Court entered a judgment denying Hill's petition to terminate the guardianship. The court, after making detailed findings of fact, concluded that the Wallses had met their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Hill is unfit because she is unable to meet Zacharia's needs:
The Respondents have met their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence [that] Kristy is not a fit parent for Zacharia at this time and that it is not in Zacharia's best interest to terminate the guardianship. Zacharia ... has been living with [the Wallses] since May of 2009 when he was four months old and Kristy Hill has not provided for his physical and emotional needs since that time. By all reports and testimony he is a happy, active child. He is bonded with ... Gordon and Linda Walls and considers them his family—he is safe and secure and all his physical and emotional needs are being met. His contact with his mother has been limited to supervised visitation. He has only been to her home once, for a two-hour visit. The Guardian ad Litem testified she had “no problems” with [the Wallses] as caregivers for the child.
Witnesses raised significant concerns about Kristy's ability to meet Zacharia's needs, including the GAL who testified that Kristy would need in-home services. While Kristy [has] been cooperative in taking steps required of her, several witnesses testified that the increase in Zacharia's anxious and nervous behavior coincides with the increase in visitation with Kristy. The presence of a newborn in the Hill household raises additional concerns. While the guardians have not encouraged increased visitation, their hesitancy to do so must be viewed in light of the evidence presented. Their concerns are for Zacharia's safety and physical and emotional well-being.
[¶ 10] The court also rejected the GAL's and Boyington's recommendations that transitional efforts be put in place, either upon termination of the guardianship (as recommended by the GAL) or under a continued guardianship (as recommended by Boyington):
Title 18–A MRSA § 5–213 authorizes the Court to provide for transitional arrangements “if it determines that such arrangements will assist the minor with a transition of custody and are in the best interests of the child.” The Court declines to do so in this case. Based on the evidence presented, the GAL's recommendation for a transitional arrangement and a limited guardianship supported by in-home services is not in the best interests of the child. As she testified herself, thus far a “slow...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Chamberlain
...5–204(c), the statute requires the guardian to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent remains unfit. See In re Guardianship of Stevens, 2014 ME 25, ¶¶ 13–14, 86 A.3d 1197 (construing 18–A M.R.S. §§ 5–204(c) and 5–212(d) to place the burden on the party opposing the termina......
-
In re Hailey M.
...discretion in the Probate Court to decide whether to implement transitional arrangements for a minor under a guardianship.” Guardianship of Stevens, 2014 ME 25, ¶ 16, 86 A.3d 1197. “Such discretion is not without limits, however. The critical test in determining the propriety of the exercis......
-
In re Golodner, Docket: Yor–16–72
...§ 5–213 (2016). We review a court's decision as to whether to implement transitional arrangements for an abuse of discretion. Guardianship of Stevens , 2014 ME 25, ¶¶ 16, 20, 86 A.3d 1197. [¶ 15] Contrary to Daniel's contention, this case is not like Stevens , where we held both that the Pr......
-
Doe v. Walsh
...of judicial discretion is whether, under the facts and circumstances of the particular case, it is in furtherance of justice." Guardianship of Stevens , 2014 ME 25, ¶ 16, 86 A.3d 1197 (quotation marks omitted).[¶8] Under Maine law, an individual generally may access and obtain copies of the......