In re Frederick P. et al., 2001 ME 138

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed a judgment terminating the mother's parental rights to her five children. The court rejected claims involving alleged religious discrimination, due process arising from her absence at a cease-reunification hearing, parental unfitness, and the children's preferences regarding termination. It held that the religious-discrimination and due-process claims were not preserved and that clear and convincing evidence supported both parental unfitness and termination as in the children's best interests.

Holdings

1. The mother's claim that references to Wicca, witchcraft, or paganism tainted the termination proceedings was not preserved because she did not object to admission of the earlier hearing transcript or seek corrective action during the termination hearing.
2. The mother did not establish a preserved due-process violation arising from her absence from the cease-reunification hearing.
3. The evidence was sufficient by the clear and convincing evidence standard to establish statutory grounds for terminating the mother's parental rights as to all five children.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support the finding that termination was in the children's best interests, and the trial court properly considered but was not bound by the wishes of children twelve years of age or older.

Questions Presented

1. Whether references to the parents' Wiccan religion during the earlier cease-reunification hearing irreparably tainted the termination proceedings and violated the mother's free-exercise rights.
2. Whether the mother's due-process rights were violated when the cease-reunification hearing proceeded in her absence after the court denied her request for a continuance.
3. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported findings of parental unfitness and that termination was in the children's best interests.
4. Whether the trial court improperly failed to give controlling effect to the wishes of the three older children who opposed or were equivocal about termination.

Disposition

affirmed