In re Cody T., 2009 ME 95

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination of the mother's parental rights but vacated the termination of the father's parental rights. The court held that the record did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the father was unfit, emphasizing that incarceration alone is insufficient and that his lack of relationship with the child was not shown to be his fault. The court remanded for further proceedings and did not reach the father's due process challenge concerning notice of the jeopardy hearing.

Holdings

1. The evidence supported findings that the mother failed to make a good-faith effort to rehabilitate, was unable or unwilling to protect Cody from jeopardy, was unable to take responsibility for him, and was unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs. The evidence also supported the finding that termination was in Cody's best interests.
2. The father's incarceration and estrangement from Cody did not, on this record, establish parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. The termination judgment as to the father was unsupported because there was no evidence that he had harmed Cody, his estrangement resulted through no fault of his own, he was about to be released, and a kinship placement could facilitate reestablishment of a nurturing parental relationship.
3. The court did not decide whether service by publication and the other notice efforts violated the father's due-process rights because the termination judgment was vacated on the independent ground that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish parental unfitness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination of the mother's parental rights based on parental unfitness and the child's best interests.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination of the father's parental rights where the father was incarcerated, had limited contact with Cody, and had become a stranger to the child through no fault of his own.
3. Whether service by publication and other efforts to notify the father of the jeopardy hearing violated due process.

Disposition

other