22 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 4055

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of a ground for termination and that the circumstances are unlikely to change; unsupported, conflicting evidence cannot satisfy that burden.

In Re Shannon R. · filed 1983-05-26(1)(B)(2)

As noted, we conclude that the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Linda had abandoned her children and that the circumstances that required the Department’s action in gaining custody were unlikely to change, as required by section 4055(1)(B).

Either statutory finding under section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) independently supports termination of parental rights.

In Re Misty Lee H. · filed 1987-08-06(1)(B)(2)(b)

Either of the District Court's findings under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) is independently adequate to justify termination.

Either statutory finding—that a parent cannot protect the child from jeopardy or cannot take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs—can independently support termination of parental rights.

In Re Randy Scott B. · filed 1986-07-07(1)(B)(2)(b)

Under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(b), either of the District Court’s basic findings is independently adequate to justify the termination of parental rights.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing proof of both parental unwillingness or inability and the child’s best interests as separate grounds for termination.

In Re Hope H. · filed 1988-05-06(1)(B)(2)(a)

Our statute requires proof to a high probability that a parent is unwilling to assume parental responsibilities and that termination serves the child’s best interests. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) and (1)(B)(2)(b)(ii) (Supp.1987). Both the statute and our case law make clear that unwillingness and best interests aré two distinct elements that must be proved independently.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) and (ii) permit termination when a parent is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for a child or protect the child from jeopardy, and those circumstances are unlikely to change in time to meet the child's needs.

In Re Amanda D. · filed 1988-10-28(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii)

After reviewing the record, we find that the District Court had sufficient evidence before it to determine that it was highly probable that Gail B. was unwilling or unable to take responsibility for her children or to protect them from jeopardy in the form of serious neglect, evidenced by lack of supervision or care. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii) (Supp.1987); 22 M.R.S.A. § 4002(6)(B) (Supp.1987).

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires the State to prove one of four grounds of parental unfitness before the court considers the child's best interests.

In Re Leona T. · filed 1992-06-15(1)(B)(2)

Notwithstanding the order set forth in section 4055, it is only after the State has met its burden relative to one of the four prongs involving parental unfitness that the best interests of the child are considered.

Section 4055 permits affirmance of a termination order when clear and convincing evidence supports any one of its alternative grounds.

In Re David H. · filed 1994-03-01(1)(B)(2)(b)

We affirm an order terminating parental rights if a review of the entire record demonstrates that the District Court rationally could have found clear and convincing evidence to support its factual findings with regard to any one of the alternative bases set out in section 4055(l)(B)(2)(b).

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows a parent cannot take responsibility for the children or protect them from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs, and termination is in their best interests.

In Re Denice F. · filed 1995-05-24(1)(B)(2)(b)

The mother challenges the court’s findings pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(b) that she is unable or unwilling within a time reasonably calculated to meet her children’s needs to take responsibility for them and to protect them from jeopardy. ... As the mother is unlikely to remedy her deficits in a time reasonably calculated to meet her children’s needs, the court did not commit clear error in finding that she is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for A and B and to protect them from jeopardy.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes that termination serves the child’s best interests and that the parent cannot protect or take responsibility for the child within the time the child needs.

In Re Denise M. · filed 1996-01-30(1)(B)(2)

Clear and convincing evidence of either circumstance, coupled with a finding that termination is in the children’s best interests pursuant to section 4055(l)(B)(2)(a), provides sufficient ground to terminate parental rights. The record here reveals clear and convincing evidence to support the judgment to terminate Sara’s and Eugene’s parental rights pursuant to section 4055.

A finding that a parent is unable or unwilling to protect a child from jeopardy, together with a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest, is sufficient to support termination of parental rights.

In Re Allison H. · filed 1999-11-29(1)(B)(2)(b)

Although the court did make an oral finding that the mother was unable or unwilling to protect Allison from jeopardy, which is sufficient to support the termination of the mother’s parental rights when coupled with the court’s determination that termination was in Allison’s best interest, see 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(b) (1992), it did not make the explicit oral finding that the mother was unable or unwilling to take responsibility for her.

Section 4055 requires the record to support a finding that a parent is unwilling or unable either to take responsibility for a child or to protect the child from jeopardy.

In Re Breauna N. · filed 1999-12-20(B)(2)(b)

Section 4055 only requires that the record support a finding that the mother was unwilling or unable to either take responsibility for or protect her child from jeopardy.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes one ground of parental unfitness and the court separately finds termination in the child’s best interests.

In Re Annie A. · filed 2001-07-13(1)(B)(2)

Proof of any one of the four statutory definitions of parental unfitness, pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055, is independently adequate to justify termination if supported by clear and convincing evidence and a separate finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.

Section 4055(B)(2) supports termination when a parent cannot protect or take responsibility for the children within a reasonable time and termination is in their best interests.

In Re Marpheen C. · filed 2002-12-04(B)(2)

Reviewing the record as a whole, there is no real question that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings that: (1) the mother was unable to protect her children from jeopardy; (2) these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs; (3) the mother was unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet them needs; and (4) the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(B)(2) (1992); In re Charles G., 2001 ME 3, ¶¶ 5-10, 763 A.2d 1163, 1165-67.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent cannot protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility within a time suited to the child’s needs, and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Danielle S. · filed 2004-02-25

The record also supports the court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence that the father is unable to protect Danielle from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet Danielle’s needs, In re David W., 568 A.2d at 515; that he is unable to take responsibility for Danielle within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet Danielle’s needs, see In re Alana S., 2002 ME 126, ¶ 23, 802 A.2d 976, 981; and that termination of his parental rights is in Danielle’s best interest, see In re Frederick P., 2001 ME 138, ¶ 19, 779 A.2d 957, 961-62.

Section 4055 requires a finding of parental unfitness under one of four statutory factors before the court decides whether termination is in the child's best interest.

In Re Angel B. · filed 1995-05-30(1)(B)(2)

A court must find parental unfitness according to one of the four statutory factors before determining whether termination is in the best interest of the children.

Section 4055 requires the court to find a basis of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence before considering the child’s best interests.

In Re Ashley A. · filed 1996-06-21(1)(B)(2)

Notwithstanding the sequence in the statute, the trial court must first find, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the four bases of parental unfitness, section 4055(l)(B)(2)(b), before it may consider the best interests of the child, section (l)(B)(2)(a).

Section 4055 requires a finding of parental unfitness before the court considers whether termination is in the child’s best interest.

In Re Joshua B. · filed 2001-07-19(1)(B)(2)

While section 4055(B) lists the “best interest” finding first among the findings which must be made to support termination, ... a finding of a parent’s unfitness or fault must be a necessary prerequisite to any state intervention into a family.

Section 4055 requires proof of parental unfitness under one of its four grounds before a court may consider the child's best interests.

In Re Scott S. · filed 2001-07-19(1)(B)(2)(b)

Although the Legislature has placed the best interest factor numerically prior to the parental unfitness factors enumerated in section 4055, we have held that the District Court must first find that the State has met its burden of proving parental unfitness under one of the four prongs of 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) before it can consider the best interests of the children.

A court terminating parental rights under § 4055 must make clear which subsection supports its decision.

In Re Kenneth H. · filed 1997-03-18

On remand, however, the court should make clear on which subsection of the applicable statute its decision rests.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unwilling or unable to protect and take responsibility for the children and that those circumstances are unlikely to change in time to meet their needs.

In re James G. · filed 1997-09-23(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) & (ii)

The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother is either unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and to take responsibility for the children, and that these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. ... Contrary to the mother’s contentions, the record supports these findings.

Section 4055 permits termination when the parent cannot protect or take responsibility for the child within a time suited to the child’s needs and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Jeremiah Y. · filed 2002-08-15(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii)

Further, contrary to the mother’s contentions, there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s judgment that she was unwilling or unable to protect Jeremiah from jeopardy and unwilling or unable to take responsibility for him, that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time which was reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and that the termination of her parental rights were in her son’s best interest. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii) (1992).

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires explicit findings, supported by clear and convincing evidence, of a statutory ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In Re Mariah B. · filed 2006-11-30(1)(B)(2)

There is no finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother is, or would be, an unfit parent for Mariah according to at least one of the criteria established in section 4055(l)(B)(2)(b), if Mariah were the only child requiring the mother’s attention and effort. There is no finding at all that termination of parental rights is in Mari-ah’s best interest, a finding required by section 4055(l)(B)(2)(a).

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows a parent is unable or unwilling to meet the child’s needs, even if the child has suffered no abuse or neglect since birth.

In re R.M. · filed 2015-03-26

Although the child has not suffered any abuse or neglect at the hands of the mother since birth, there is clear and convincing evidence of her inability or unwillingness to meet the child’s needs.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination when any one ground of parental unfitness is established and termination is in the child’s best interests.

In re P.O. · filed 2015-08-06(1)(B)(2)

Any one of the court’s findings of unfitness, combined with the uncontested determination that termination of his parental rights is the best interests of the children, can support the court’s termination of the father’s parental rights. See id. § 4055(1)(B)(2); In re A.H., 2013 ME 85, ¶ 14, 77 A.3d 1012.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports a statutory ground for parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re L.D. · filed 2015-09-03(1)(B)(2)

Given the father’s pattern of drug abuse and criminal activity, the court rationally could have found, by clear and convincing evidence in the record, that the father is unable to protect L.D. from jeopardy or take responsibility for L.D. within a reasonable time frame. Given the evidence, the court also rationally could have found that the father did not make a good faith effort to reunify and that termination of his parental rights is in L.D.’s best interest.

Each listed ground of parental unfitness independently supports termination of parental rights when proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Adoption of Hali D. · filed 2009-07-16(1)(B)(2)(b)

The court also found parental unfitness on other grounds, but we need not consider whether these alternative grounds are supported by clear and convincing evidence because each of the bases listed in 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(b) is independently adequate to support the termination of parental rights.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) allows termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes any one of its four grounds of parental unfitness.

In re M.S. · filed 2014-04-08(1)(B)(2)(b)

Proof of any one of the four statutory definitions of parental unfitness set out at 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) ... will justify termination if supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 4055 requires only one established ground of parental unfitness to support termination of parental rights.

In re M.E. · filed 2016-01-07(1)(B)(2)(b)

The father does not challenge the other three grounds of parental unfitness as found by the trial court, however, and the court need only find one ground of parental unfitness to support a termination of parental rights.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness for each child before parental rights may be terminated.

In Re Dakota K. · filed 2016-02-16(1)(B)(2)(b)

Contrary to each parent’s contentions, as to each child, the court found at least one ground of parental unfitness supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent cannot protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs.

In Re Higera N. · filed 2010-08-10(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii)

The father finally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the District Court’s finding that he is an unfit parent because he is unable to (1) protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs, and (2) take responsibility for them within that time. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii). ... On whole, the trial court’s finding that the father is an unfit parent is fully supported by this record.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) allows findings of parental unfitness to rest on a parent's failure to complete treatment, work with service providers, and recognize dangerous caretakers.

In re S.P. · filed 2013-09-24(1)(B)(2)(b)

Her failure to complete treatment, her unwillingness to work with service providers, and her inability to understand the dangerous circumstances she had put her children in by placing them with predatory and dangerous caretakers are more than sufficient to support the court’s multiple findings of unfitness.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness.

In re T.C. · filed 2015-03-05(1)(B)(2)(b)

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the record supports the court’s finding that at least one ground of parental unfitness was proved by clear and convincing evidence. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(iv); In re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159, ¶¶ 17, 21-23, 809 A.2d 1245.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness.

In re D.C. · filed 2015-03-10(1)(B)(2)(b)

Therefore, contrary to the father’s contentions, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the court’s finding of at least one ground of parental unfitness.

Section 4055(1) allows a finding of parental unfitness when a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy and that condition is unlikely to change in time to meet the child’s needs.

In re K.M. · filed 2015-06-30(1)

From this evidence, the court could reasonably have been persuaded that the father is currently unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that these circumstances are ... unlikely to change within a time that would meet the child’s needs.

Section 4055(1-A)(A) creates a rebuttable presumption of parental unfitness when a parent acts toward a child in a manner heinous or abhorrent to society; forcing a child to help prepare for a threatened killing satisfies that standard.

In re J.V. · filed 2015-12-22(1-A)(A)

By statute a parent is presumed, subject to rebuttal, to be unfit if he “act[s] toward a child in a manner that is heinous or abhorrent to society.” 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A)(A). The trial court found that the father’s conduct was “heinous and abhorrent,” and we emphatically agree.

Section 4055 permits termination based on the required findings supported by clear and convincing evidence, even when consent is not the basis for termination.

In Re Priscilla D. · filed 2010-10-19(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(ii)

Because the record demonstrates that the court did not terminate the parents’ parental rights on the basis of consent, but rather made the factual findings required pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(a) and (b)(ii), and that the court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, we do not address further the arguments related to the statutory basis for termination or the sufficiency of the evidence.

A parent’s failure to communicate with a child for a substantial period, including during incarceration, can establish abandonment as a ground for termination of parental rights.

In re A.M. · filed 2012-10-23(1)(B)(2)(b)(iii)

A failure to communicate with a child for a substantial period of time both before and during incarceration can, however, demonstrate abandonment of the child.

Section 4055 permits a finding of parental unfitness when a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

In re A.H. · filed 2013-10-15(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii)

Given the evidence that these parents, however loving, will never have the capacity to adequately care for this child with her significant medical needs, the court could reasonably have been persuaded that it was highly probable that the parents were unable to protect the child from jeopardy to her health or welfare and were unable to take responsibility for her ... within a time reasonably calculated to meet her needs.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re G.W. · filed 2014-02-25(1)(B)(2)

Finally, contrary to the father’s contention, the record supports the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports a ground of parental unfitness and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re I.S. · filed 2015-08-04(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii)

Finally, contrary to the father’s contentions, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the court’s finding of at least one ground of parental unfitness, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), and that termination was in the child’s best interest, see id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the children’s best interest.

In re Magdalena F. · filed 2016-08-09(1)(B)(2)

Because the trial record supports the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the best interest of the children, we affirm.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy or take responsibility within the time the child needs, and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Gracesun C. · filed 2017-03-02(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii); (1)(B)(2)(a)

Contrary to the parents’ contentions, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that both parents are “unwilling or unable to protect the child[ren] from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child[ren]’s needs” and that they “ha[ve] been unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child[ren] within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child[ren]’s needs.” ... There is also sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the children.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness to terminate parental rights.

In re M.C. · filed 2014-11-13(1)(B)(2)(b)(ii)

The record supports the court’s findings, to the clear and convincing evidence standard, that at least one ground of parental unfitness is proved. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(ii); In re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159, ¶¶ 17-23, 809 A.2d 1245.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports abandonment or failure to make a good faith effort to reunify, and termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re J.B. · filed 2015-03-10(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(iii)-(iv)

In addition, competent, and almost entirely uncontroverted, evidence in the record supports the court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, failure to make a good faith effort to reunify with the children, and that termination was in the best interests of the children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4002(1-A) (2014); 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(iii)-(iv).

Section 4055 allows a finding of parental unfitness when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent is unwilling or unable to protect a child from jeopardy and that those circumstances are unlikely to change in time to meet the child’s needs.

In re C.A. · filed 2015-03-19(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)

Sufficient evidence thus supports the court’s finding, ... by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother is unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time that would meet the child’s needs.

Section 4055’s parental unfitness requirement is satisfied when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one statutory ground for termination.

In re L.T. · filed 2015-07-28(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv)

The father argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights because it did not have sufficient evidence before it to find, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds for parental termination pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv). ... The record supports the court’s findings that the father has significant mental health and anger issues. Further, the record supports the court’s findings that the father inconsistently engaged in services to deal with these issues and that the father had stopped all services at the time of the termination hearing. Because these factual findings are supported by competent record evidence and clearly constitute at least one, if not all three, of the statutory bases the court identified, we affirm the court’s findings and conclusions as to the grounds for termination.

Section 4055 allows termination when clear and convincing evidence supports a ground of parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re M.P. · filed 2015-10-29(1)(B)(2)

Regarding the initial judgment, there is competent evidence in the record to support the court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one ground of parental unfitness. ... Moreover, the court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re G.T. · filed 2016-01-12(1)(B)(2)

For a court to terminate parental rights after custody has been removed from a parent upon a finding of jeopardy, see 22 M.R.S. §§ 4035, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) (2015), the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) (2015), and that termination was in the child’s best interest, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).

Section 4055(1)(B) permits termination of parental rights over a parent’s opposition only on clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re C.P. · filed 2016-01-26(1)(B)

A court may terminate parental rights over a parent’s opposition only if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness—a finding that is essentially unchallenged by either parent here—and that termination is in the child’s best interest. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B) (2015); In re I.S., 2015 ME 100, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 105.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence of a ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Cameron Z. · filed 2016-11-08(1)(B)(2)

From those facts and legal authorities, the court could rationally find by clear and convincing evidence that both parents were unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy or to take responsibility for them; that neither of those circumstances is likely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs; that the father abandoned the children; and that termination of the parents’ rights is in the children’s best interest. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2).

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Ashlyn L. · filed 2017-05-04(1)(B)(2)

Contrary to the mother’s contentions, there is sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one ground of parental unfitness, and that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in Ashlyn’s best interest.

Section 4055 permits termination when supported findings show abandonment, failure to alleviate jeopardy or engage in reunification, or inability to protect the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

In re Tacoma M. · filed 2017-05-09(1)(B)(2)(b)

Given these findings, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court adequately explained how the mother abandoned the child and how she has failed to alleviate jeopardy, to engage in reunification services, and to protect the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

Section 4055 permits termination when the evidence supports a statutory ground of parental unfitness and termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re Mariah Y. · filed 2017-05-09(1)(B)(2)

Given these findings, the court adequately explained how the mother has failed to alleviate jeopardy, failed to engage in rehabilitative services, and failed to protect the children or be available to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. ... The court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the children’s best interest.

In re Mathew H. · filed 2017-07-11(1)(B)(2)

In sum, the court’s supported findings explaining why the father cannot protect the children from jeopardy within the time required by statute and why the children’s best interest requires termination are sufficient to support the judgment.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one ground of parental unfitness and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re River B. · filed 2017-05-04(1)(B)(2)

Given these findings, the court did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports at least one ground of parental unfitness and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Isabelle W. · filed 2017-05-04(1)(B)(2)

We affirm the judgment because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 permits termination when the evidence supports at least one ground of parental unfitness and termination is in the child's best interest.

In re Myra B. · filed 2017-08-01(1)(B)(2)

The court’s supported findings were sufficient for the court to have found at least one ground of parental unfitness, see In re I.S., 2015 ME 100, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 105; the court adequately explained how the deficits of the parents render each parent unable to meet the individual needs of each child, see In re Jazmine L., 2004 ME 125, ¶ 16, 861 A.2d 1277; cf. In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 39, 854 A.2d 195; and the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the parents’ parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, is in each child’s best interest, see In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297.

A parent’s failure to reliably meet a child’s extraordinary medical needs can establish inability to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

In re Jesse B. · filed 2017-05-09(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

In sum, although it is clear that the parents love the child, given the child’s extraordinary medical needs and the parents’ failure to reliably meet those needs, the court did not err by determining that the parents were unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child or to protect him from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness.

In re Lacie G. · filed 2017-06-22(1)(B)(2)(b)

Given these findings, which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent cannot protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

In re Mya E. · filed 2017-05-11(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

The court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, which indicate that the mother is unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy, and take responsibility for the child, in a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes a ground of parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Kayleigh P. · filed 2017-05-16(1)(B)(2)

Given the court’s supported factual findings, and giving its judgment the “substantial deference” to which it is entitled, id. ¶ 33 (quotation marks omitted), the court did not err in finding “by clear and convincing evidence[] at least one ground of parental unfitness,” id. ¶ 27 (quotation marks omitted), and did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest, see id. ¶ 34.

Section 4055 permits termination when the findings establish that the parents cannot or will not protect the child from jeopardy within the time the child needs and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Gabriel W. · filed 2017-06-27(1)(B)(2)

The court’s findings, based on evidence in the record, explaining why the parents cannot or are unwilling to protect the child from jeopardy within the time required by statute and why the child’s best interest requires termination, are sufficient to support the judgment.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination of parental rights when the evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Bradyn B. · filed 2017-07-27(1)(B)(2)

Accordingly, the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that the parents are unfit and that termination of their parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 allows termination when a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child in time to meet the child’s needs.

In re Skyler F. · filed 2017-06-27(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii)

Given these findings and the court’s other specific findings of fact that are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court adequately explained how the deficits of the parents render each parent—and both of them together—unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them in time to meet the children’s needs.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Zoey H. · filed 2017-07-18(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv)

Given this evidence, the court appropriately determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that the State has demonstrated all four grounds of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for a child or protect the child from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs.

In re Joseph V. · filed 2017-08-01(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

Given these and other factual findings, the court could reasonably have been persuaded that the factual bases supporting its finding of parental unfitness as to both parents were proved to be highly probable.

Section 4055 permits termination when the statutory grounds for parental unfitness are established and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Landon S. · filed 2017-10-05(1)(B)(2)

Given these findings and the court’s other specific findings of fact, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its unfitness determination nor did it err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 permits termination when the evidence supports findings of parental unfitness and that termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re Danika B. · filed 2017-10-24(1)(B)(2)

There is competent evidence in the record to support the court’s findings of unfitness and that termination is in the children’s best interests.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest before parental rights may be terminated without consent.

Adoption of Isabelle T. · filed 2017-11-30(1)(B)(2)

Pursuant to the Adoption Act, which incorporates by reference 22 M.R.S. § 4055, the court may order ... termination of parental rights, absent parental consent, only if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the parent (i) is unable to protect the child from jeopardy, (ii) is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, or (iii) has abandoned the child; and (2) with unfitness proved, termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness and that termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re Zianna G. · filed 2017-12-07(1)(B)(2)

A court may terminate a parent’s parental rights if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the children’s best interests. ... Given the mother’s untreated and ongoing substance abuse problem and her irregular efforts to engage in reunification services, the court ... rationally found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother was unable to protect Zianna and Lucas from jeopardy or take responsibility for them in a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs.

Section 4055 permits termination when the evidence supports a finding of parental unfitness and termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re Zarianna C. · filed 2018-01-23(1)(B)(2)

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence supports the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination is in the children’s best interests.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Marcus E. · filed 2017-10-05(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii)

Given these findings and the court’s other specific findings of fact, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that the mother was unfit and that termination of the mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 permits termination of parental rights when the evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Keegan M. · filed 2017-10-05(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii)

The court’s supported findings were sufficient for the court to have found at least one ground of parental unfitness, see In re I.S., 2015 ME 100, ¶ 11, 121 A.3d 105; the court adequately explained how the deficits of the parents render each parent unable to meet Keegan’s individual needs, see In re Jazmine L., 2004 ME 125, ¶ 16, 861 A.2d 1277; and the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the parents’ parental rights, ... with a permanency plan of adoption, is in Keegan’s best interest.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires findings that the parent is unfit and that termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re Aurora M. · filed 2018-01-23(1)(B)(2)

Further, although not challenged by the father on appeal, the court’s findings that father is unfit and that termination is in the children’s best interests does not reflect any error or abuse of discretion.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that parents are unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their children and protect them from ongoing harm.

In re Hope H. · filed 2017-10-05(1)(B)(2)

Clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the court’s findings that the mother and the father are unable or unwilling to take responsibility for the children and protect them from the risks of harm that have persisted since the court issued the jeopardy order. 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2).

Section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) requires clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness to support termination of parental rights.

In re Arturo G. · filed 2017-12-12(1)(B)(2)(b)

These findings and the court’s other specific findings of fact are all supported by competent evidence in the record, and the court adequately explained how the father’s deficits render him unfit.

Section 4055 permits a finding of parental unfitness when clear and convincing evidence supports at least one ground of unfitness, even if the court does not address the extent of the Department’s reunification efforts.

In re Emma S. · filed 2018-01-23(1)(B)(2)(b)

The court may consider the lack of reunification efforts, but is not required to address the extent of the Department’s reunification efforts in its finding that the father is unfit if competent evidence in the record supports the court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one ground of parental unfitness.

Section 4055 permits termination when the evidence establishes a statutory ground of parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Braxton M. · filed 2017-10-05(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv)

These findings are sufficient to support the court’s determinations that the parents are unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs, that they had failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child, and that termination of their parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 permits a finding of parental unfitness when a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

In re Damein F. · filed 2017-10-12(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

These areas of serious concern show that, despite the progress the father has made over the last two years, he is unable, within a time reasonably calculated to meet Damein’s needs, to protect Damein from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii); In re M.B., 2013 ME 46, ¶ 39, 65 A.3d 1260. Because the court’s findings of unfitness are supported by clear and convincing evidence, and because permanent placement with the foster family with whom Damein has lived since November 2014 would be in the child’s best interest, we find no error.

Section 4055 requires findings of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Anastasia M. · filed 2017-11-02(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii)

Given these findings and the court’s other extensive, specific findings of fact, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its determination of unfitness nor did it err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent cannot take responsibility for a child or protect the child from jeopardy within a time suited to the child’s needs.

In re Bentlee G. · filed 2017-12-21(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

Here, competent record evidence supports the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that both parents are unable to take responsibility for Bentlee G., and that they are unwilling or unable to protect ... him from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii).

Section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(iv) provides grounds for finding parental unfitness, including abandonment, inability to protect or take responsibility for a child, and failure to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify.

In re Dante C. · filed 2018-01-23(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(iv)

The record supports the court’s findings of parental unfitness as to the mother. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(iv).

Section 4055 permits termination when sufficient evidence establishes parental unfitness, including inability to take responsibility for the child within a reasonable time, abandonment, or failure to make a good faith effort to reunify.

In re Emma C. · filed 2018-01-23(1)(B)(2)(b)(ii)-(iv)

Here, the court’s unfitness findings that the father is either unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, that the child has been abandoned by the father, and that the father has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child are all supported by sufficient evidence. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(B)(2)(b)(ii)-(iv).

Section 4055 permits a finding of parental unfitness when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

In re Meena H. · filed 2018-01-23(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

These findings are sufficient to support the court’s conclusion that the parents are unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) — (ii). We therefore conclude that the court did not err when it determined that the parents are unfit pursuant to section 4055(l)(B)(2)(b).

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination when the evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Children of Alice R. · filed 2018-03-15(1)(B)(2)

The record evidence supports the court’s findings of parental unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination of the parents’ parental rights was in their son’s best interest.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination of parental rights when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Lindsay D. · filed 2018-07-03(1)(B)(2)

Given these findings of fact, which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its finding of parental unfitness, and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the ... mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground of parental unfitness before parental rights may be terminated.

In re Melissa F. · filed 2018-08-02(1)(B)(2)(b)

Contrary to the parents' contentions, competent evidence in the record supports, to the clear and convincing standard, the court's findings concerning each of the bases of parental unfitness and the children's best interests.

Section 4055 requires a trial court to find a statutory basis of parental unfitness before considering the child’s best interest when terminating parental rights.

In re Child of Christine M. · filed 2018-10-04(1)(B)(2)(b)

To terminate parental rights, a trial court must first find one of the four statutory bases of parental unfitness in 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b), and then it must consider the best interest of the child.

Section 4055 permits termination when a parent cannot protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Eric K. · filed 2018-03-06(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii)

Given these findings and the court’s other specific findings of fact, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its unfitness determination nor did it err or abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of the father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, is in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires a supported finding of parental unfitness and a determination that termination is in the child's best interest.

In re Heather W. · filed 2018-03-06(1)(B)(2)

[¶ 10] Given these findings and the court's other specific findings of fact, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its finding of parental unfitness, nor did it err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the mother's parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, is in the child's best interest.

Section 4055 permits termination when a parent cannot protect or take responsibility for a child within a time that meets the child's needs and termination is in the child's best interest.

In re Child of Portia L. · filed 2018-04-17(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii)

Given these findings and the court's other specific findings of fact, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its finding of parental unfitness, nor did it err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the mother's parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, is in the child's best interest.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Maranatha K. · filed 2018-10-04(1)(B)(2)

Accordingly, the court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding, to the clear and convincing standard, at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination when evidence supports parental unfitness and termination is in the child's best interest.

In re Tanya C. · filed 2018-11-20(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv)

Based on these determinations, which are supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in finding that the mother is unfit, nor did it abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the best interest of this child.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness and that termination is in the child's best interest.

In re Adam E. · filed 2018-12-06(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii)

Reviewing the factual findings supporting the court's unfitness and best interest determinations for clear error, and further reviewing the court's ultimate conclusion that termination is in the child's best interest for an abuse of discretion, we determine that the court's findings and conclusions are supported by this record.

Section 4055 recognizes parental unfitness when a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy, cannot take responsibility for the child in time, or fails to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify.

In re Nicholas M. · filed 2018-03-06(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv)

The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the father is unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy, and that this circumstance is unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs; (2) the father is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs; and (3) the father has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child. Contrary to the father's contention, each of the court's unfitness findings is supported by competent evidence in the record.

Section 4055 permits a finding of parental unfitness when a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy, cannot assume responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, or fails to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify.

In re Child of Nuradin A. · filed 2018-03-15(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv)

These findings are sufficient to support the court’s conclusion that the father is unable to protect the child from jeopardy, is unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and did not make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv).

Section 4055 permits termination of parental rights when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Kaysean M. · filed 2018-12-06(1)(B)(2)

Reviewing the factual findings supporting the court’s unfitness and best interest determinations for clear error, and further reviewing the court’s ultimate conclusion that termination is in the child’s best interest for an abuse of discretion, we determine that the court’s findings and conclusions are supported by this record.

Section 4055 allows termination when a parent remains unable to protect children from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs or fails to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with them.

In re Edward F. · filed 2018-12-06(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) and (iv)

Based on the facts that the court found, all of which have evidentiary support, the court did not err in finding that the father remains unable to protect the children from jeopardy within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet their needs and has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children.

Section 4055 permits termination when the evidence establishes parental unfitness and shows that termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re Children of Anthony N. · filed 2019-05-02(1)(B)(2)

Competent record evidence supports the court’s determinations, which were predicated on supported factual findings and the application of the requisite standard of proof, that the father is parentally unfit and that termination of his parental rights is in the best interests of the children. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv); In re Child of Tanya C., 2018 ME 153, ¶ 13, 198 A.3d 777 (stating the standard of review for judgments terminating parental rights). Accordingly, the court did not err by terminating the father’s parental rights to the two children.

Section 4055 permits termination when a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy that is unlikely to change in time to meet the child's needs, or cannot take responsibility for the child within that time.

In re Stephenie F. · filed 2018-12-11(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

These findings, all of which are supported by competent evidence in the record except as noted, supra note 2, are sufficient to support the court's determination that the mother is (1) unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs, and (2) unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires the court to find parental unfitness before considering the child’s best interests.

Adoption of Shayleigh S. · filed 2018-12-20(1)(B)(2)

We have ... previously stated that, notwithstanding the sequence of issues stated in 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2), the trial court must find parental unfitness before it proceeds to consider the best interests of the children.

Section 4055 requires findings of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Megan D. · filed 2019-04-09(1)(B)(2)

Contrary to the mother’s contentions, there is competent evidence in the record that supports the court’s findings of parental unfitness pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) and the court’s ultimate conclusion that termination of her parental rights is in the best interest of the child pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re Children of Jessica D. · filed 2019-05-14(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii)

Based upon these facts, all of which are supported by competent record evidence, the court did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother is unable to take responsibility and unable to protect the children from jeopardy, that these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs, and that termination of her parental rights are in the best interests of the children, nor did the court abuse its discretion in its ultimate decision to terminate her parental rights.

Section 4055 permits termination when the evidence supports parental unfitness and shows that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Dawn B. · filed 2019-06-11(1)(B)(2)

The court’s findings of parental unfitness—that the parents do not have suitable housing to care for the child, are unable to provide primary care for the child without assistance, and have made little or no progress in addressing any of the issues that led to the entry of the jeopardy order—are supported by evidence from the GAL, the visit supervisors, the Department’s permanency caseworker, the parents’ diagnostic evaluator, and the mother’s counselor. That evidence, in addition to the testimony regarding the love and appropriate care the child receives from her pre-adoptive foster parents, also supports the court’s finding that termination of the parents’ rights is in the child’s best interest, and the court did not abuse its discretion in making that best interest determination.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires grounds of parental unfitness and a determination that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Haley L. · filed 2019-07-11(1)(B)(2)

Given the mother’s lack of progress toward alleviating the identified grounds for the finding of jeopardy in this matter, the court did not err in finding three bases of unfitness—her inability to protect the child from jeopardy, with the circumstances being unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the needs of the child; her inability to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and her failure to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2), (b)(i), (ii), (iv). Nor did the court err in determining that the termination of her parental rights is in the child’s best interest based on his need for permanency after spending a year ... and a half in foster care while the mother made so little progress toward rehabilitation and reunification. See id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).

Section 4055 allows termination when a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time that meets the child’s needs.

In re Child of Jonathan D. · filed 2019-01-24(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

Based on the court’s findings of fact, all of which have evidentiary support, the court did not err in determining that the father remains unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

Section 4055 identifies a parent's inability or unwillingness to protect a child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs as grounds of parental unfitness.

Adoption of Riahleigh M.Adoption of MyAnnah D. · filed 2019-02-14(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

On the existing record, the court did not err in finding that each father is unable or unwilling to protect his child from jeopardy and that those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet his child’s needs, and that he is unable or unwilling to take responsibility for his child within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet her needs. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii); In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123, ¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297; In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 854 A.2d 195.

Section 4055 permits termination of one parent's rights when termination is in the children's best interests, even if the other parent retains parental rights.

In re Christopher S. · filed 2019-02-28(1)(B)(2)(a)

Further, although the court acknowledged that it may not be altogether common to terminate one parent's rights to a child while preserving the other parent's parental rights, the court concluded that the circumstances of this case warranted that outcome. Given the evidence presented to the court, this determination was not erroneous.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) does not require termination of a father’s parental rights before the mother’s parental rights can be terminated.

In re Children of Tiyonie R. · filed 2019-03-05(1)(B)(2)

Although the pending proceeding as to the older child’s father may prevent the immediate adoption of that child, see 18-A M.R.S. § 9-302(a)(2), (b) (2018), the termination of a father’s parental rights is not a factual predicate to the termination of the mother’s parental rights, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2).

Section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) and (ii) provide grounds for termination when clear and convincing evidence shows that a parent cannot protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs.

In re Children of Melissa S. · filed 2019-05-02(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii)

The record supports the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother is unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs.

Section 4055 requires at least one ground of parental unfitness and clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interest.

In re Child Danielle F. · filed 2019-05-07(1)(B)(2)

Before a court may terminate a parent's parental rights, the court must find at least one ground of parental unfitness, which the mother does not contest here, and determine, "by clear and convincing evidence ... that termination is in the child's best interest."

A parent's failure to attend any part of a termination hearing may support a finding of abandonment, unless the parent shows good cause for the absence.

In re Child of Olivia F. · filed 2019-10-01(1)(B)(2)(b)(iii)

A parent’s failure to respond to a notice of a child protection proceeding, including the parent’s failure to attend any portion of the termination hearing, may be taken by the court as evidence of the parent’s intent to forego his or her parental duties.

A single ground of parental unfitness supported by clear and convincing evidence satisfies the unfitness requirement for termination under section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b).

In re Child of Nichole W. · filed 2019-12-19(1)(B)(2)(b)

If a court finds multiple bases for parental unfitness, “we will affirm if any one of the alternative bases is supported by clear and convincing evidence.” ... Here, the court found the mother unfit based on all four grounds of unfitness, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(iv), and the evidence is sufficient to support all of those grounds, including abandonment.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Shai F. · filed 2020-05-12(1)(B)(2)

The court’s supported findings are sufficient to support these determinations.

Section 4055 permits termination when clear and convincing evidence establishes parental unfitness and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Rebecca R. · filed 2019-12-12(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv)

The court made its unfitness findings, as well as its finding that termination was in the child’s best interest, based on competent evidence in the record.

Section 4055 permits termination when a parent cannot protect a child from jeopardy or take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Charlene F. · filed 2019-12-23(1)(B)(2)

Charlene F. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Ellsworth, Roberts, J.) terminating her parental rights to her child pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2018). ... After carefully reviewing this record, we discern no clear error or abuse of discretion in the court’s findings or analysis.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires findings that termination is in the child’s best interests and that the parent is unfit.

Adoption by Stefan S. · filed 2020-01-09(1)(B)(2)

Title 22 § 4055(1)(B)(2) lists two findings as prerequisites to a termination of parental rights: first, that termination is in the best interest of the child; and second, that the parent has demonstrated unfitness in one of four ways.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires a supported finding of parental unfitness and a determination that termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re Children of James B . · filed 2020-01-30(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)

Viewing the record in its entirety, we conclude that (1) competent evidence in the record supports the court’s finding that both parents are parentally unfit, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), and (2) the court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of both parents’ parental rights is in the children’s best interests, see 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Amber D. · filed 2020-03-05(1)(B)(2)

To terminate parental rights without the mother’s consent, the trial court was required to find, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the best interest of the child.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground of parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Child of Jessica C. · filed 2020-05-12(1)(B)(2)

In order to terminate a parent’s rights without consent, the trial court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one of the statutory bases for parental unfitness and that termination is in the child’s best interest. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2020); In re Child of Sherri Y., 2019 ME 162, ¶ 5, 221 A.3d 120.

Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness and a determination that termination is in the child’s best interest.

In re Children of Michelle C. · filed 2021-12-07(1)(B)(2)

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness and in determining that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the older child.

Section 4055 permits termination when the findings establish that parents cannot protect their children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs.

In re Children of Jacob S. · filed 2020-05-14(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii)

These findings, all of which are supported by competent evidence except as noted supra n.2, are sufficient to support the court’s ultimate findings that the parents are unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them in a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) (2020); In re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104, ¶ 21, 854 A.2d 195.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground of parental unfitness and a determination that termination is in the children’s best interests.

In re Children of Loretta M. · filed 2020-10-15(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv)

Contrary to the mother’s contention, on this record the court did not clearly err in finding at least one ground of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, nor did the court abuse its discretion in concluding that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Section 4055 requires findings on the determinations necessary to terminate parental rights.

In re Child of Christian D. · filed 2025-02-11(1)

In other words, Rule 52(a) ensures that the trial court makes adequate, independent findings with respect to the determinations that 22 M.R.S. § 4055 requires to be made before a court may terminate a parent’s rights.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy, the circumstances are unlikely to change in a reasonable time, and termination is in the child’s best interests.

Nesiba v. Taylor · filed 1981-08-21(1)(B)(2)

Under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2), the need for a natural parent’s written consent to the adoption is obviated only where the adopting parent shows by “clear and convincing evidence” that (a) The [natural] parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy; (b) The circumstances are unlikely to change in a reasonable time; and (c) Termination is in the best interests of the child.

Section 4055(1)(B) permits termination of parental rights when clear and convincing evidence supports findings that termination is in the child’s best interests and that the parents failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify.

In re Joshua W. · filed 1989-11-07(1)(B)

Clear and convincing evidence supports the District Court’s findings that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child and that neither parent has made a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B) (Supp.1988).

Section 4055 requires a finding that termination is in the child’s best interest and that at least one of four criteria, including abandonment, is met.

In re Mark M. · filed 1990-10-26

22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 requires that the court find both that termination is in the best interest of the child, and that at least one of four different criteria, of which abandonment is one, is met.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination of parental rights when the District Court’s findings are rationally supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In re James W. · filed 1983-12-08(1)(B)(2)

On this appeal the mother of the three minor children challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the District Court’s findings in terminating her parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (Supp.1982-1983). We hold that the District Court’s findings are rationally supported by clear and convincing evidence, and we deny the appeal.

Findings supporting termination of parental rights under § 4055(1)(B)(2) must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In re Arnold R. · filed 1984-07-05(1)(B)(2)

In this appeal the father of Arnold R. and three other children challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the District Court findings in terminating his parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (Supp.1983-1984). After independently reviewing the District Court record, we conclude that the Court’s findings are rationally supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Termination under section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires findings supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In re Samuel B. · filed 1986-06-06(1)(B)(2)

The mother and father of Samuel B. and three other children appeal the order of the District Court (Belfast) terminating their parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (Supp.1985). On the sole issue presented on appeal, we conclude that the District Court’s findings are rationally supported by clear and convincing evidence of record.

Section 4055 requires proof of the statutory grounds for terminating parental rights to a high probability.

In re Kandi C. · filed 1986-12-02

Karen C. appeals from a judgment of the District Court, Skowhegan, terminating her parental rights to two of her children. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (Supp.1985). She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination. Examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the Department of Human Services, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to persuade the factfinder that the statutory requirements were proven to a high probability.

Section 4055 requires the statutory requirements for terminating parental rights to be proved to a high degree of probability.

In re Sarrah P. · filed 1987-10-13

Examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the party prevailing in the District Court, we conclude that the evidence sufficiently supports the factfinder’s conclusion that the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights were proved to a high degree of probability.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence to support findings terminating parental rights.

In re Catherine T. · filed 1987-11-30

The mother of Catherine T. appeals from the judgment of the District Court, Augusta, terminating her parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (Supp.1986), contending the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s findings. After careful review of the record, we conclude the court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 4055 requires the statutory requirements for terminating parental rights to be proved to a high degree of probability.

In re Stanley C. · filed 1988-05-26

Examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the parly prevailing in the District Court, we conclude that the evidence sufficiently supports the factfinder’s conclusion that the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights were proved to a high degree of probability.

Section 4055 requires evidence that could reasonably persuade the court that the factual findings needed to terminate parental rights are highly probable.

In re Jessica O. · filed 1988-07-07

We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the District Court could have reasonably been persuaded that the factual findings required for termination were proven to have been highly probable.

Section 4055 requires evidence sufficient to make the factual findings needed for termination of parental rights highly probable.

In re Roberta S. · filed 1988-09-19

The parents of Roberta S. .appeal from a judgment of the District Court, Portland, terminating their parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (Supp.1987). The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the District Court’s decision. Our review of the record satisfies us that the District Court reasonably could have been persuaded that the requisite factual findings were proved to be highly probable.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination of parental rights when clear and convincing evidence establishes the statutory grounds for termination.

In re Marcus D. · filed 1990-12-12(1)(B)(2)

After a careful review, we conclude that the District Court had sufficient evidence from which it could rationally have found that the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights were satisfied clearly and convincingly.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) permits termination when clear and convincing evidence supports its criteria concerning jeopardy, the likelihood of change, and the child's best interests.

In Re Simone S. · filed 1984-04-25(1)(B)(2)

After reviewing independently the District Court record, we conclude that the District Court judge could rationally conclude that the statutory criteria ... for termination of parental rights were satisfied by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent’s inability to protect a child from jeopardy is unlikely to change within a reasonable time and that termination serves the child’s best interests.

In Re Edmund M. · filed 1984-05-24(1)(B)(2)

There is more than ample evidence the District Court could find clear and convincing proof that the mother’s current inability to protect the boy from jeopardy is not likely to change in a reasonable time and that termination will serve his best interests.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence of the grounds for terminating parental rights, without the Homer quality-of-evidence meaning of that standard.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental Retardation · filed 1984-08-14

We simultaneously overrule the adoption of the Homer quality-of-evidence meaning of the phrase "clear and convincing evidence" used in 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (Supp.1983-1984) for the required proof of the grounds for termination of parental rights.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights.

In Re Jennifer M. · filed 1992-07-14

We note in the present case that the court referred to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 several times in its opinion, and that section expressly sets forth the requirement of clear and convincing evidence. In this case we do not assume that the court committed reversible error merely by failing to articulate the standard.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to establish grounds for termination of parental rights.

In Re Dean A. · filed 1985-04-26(1)(B)(2)

Under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2) the grounds for termination of parental rights are required to be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Termination under section 4055 requires evidence sufficient to prove the statutory requirements to a high probability.

In re Matthew T. · filed 1987-06-26

Examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the party prevailing in the District Court, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to persuade the factfinder that the statutory requirements were proven to a high probability.

Section 4055 requires the factual findings supporting termination of parental rights to be proved to a high probability.

In re George S. · filed 1988-10-21

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the District Court could rationally find that the requisite factual findings were proved to a high probability.

Under either version of section 4055(1)(B)(2), the findings supporting termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In re Erik T. · filed 1985-10-09(1)(B)(2)

After full review of the record, we conclude that under either the old or the new text of section 4055(1)(B)(2) the District Court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights; the trial court resolves conflicting competent evidence about whether a parent's circumstances are unlikely to change in a reasonable time.

In re Bradford B. · filed 1985-12-09(1)(B)(2)

After an independent review of the District Court record, we conclude that the District Court judge could rationally find that the statutory criteria for termination of parental rights were satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. ... Although the record contains conflicting competent evidence as to whether the mother’s circumstances were unlikely to change in a reasonable time, such a conflict is appropriately resolved by the trial court.

Termination under § 4055(1)(B)(2) requires clear and convincing evidence to support the district court’s findings.

In re Jacob G. · filed 1987-10-09(1)(B)(2)

The mother of Jacob G. and Jennifer G. appeals separate orders of the District Court (Biddeford) terminating her parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (Supp.1986). On the issues presented on appeal, we conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the District Court’s findings.

Section 4055 requires findings supporting termination of parental rights to be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re Amber B. · filed 1991-10-11(1)(B)(2)

Section 4055 requires that these findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 4055 requires clear and convincing evidence to support findings that parents cannot protect a child from jeopardy and cannot take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.

In Re Sara K. · filed 1992-07-20(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) & (ii)

Section 4055 requires that the findings of inability to protect the child from jeopardy and to take responsibility for the child within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

A petitioner seeking termination of parental rights based on abandonment must prove abandonment by clear and convincing evidence.

In re Brianna K. · filed 1996-05-07

The mother and her husband were required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, facts that demonstrated that Brianna had been abandoned.