In re Children of Jeremy A.

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment terminating the parental rights of both parents to their children and denying their motions to reopen the termination record and for relief from judgment. The court held that the trial court properly declined to reopen the record and correctly rejected the parents’ ineffective-assistance claims under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court also concluded that competent evidence supported termination and that the parents’ criminal convictions and related circumstances were properly considered.

Holdings

1. The District Court properly denied the parents' request to add the expert testimony because the Supreme Judicial Court's prior remand expressly limited the termination record to evidence appropriately considered during the termination hearing and excluded evidence developed in the Rule 60(b) proceeding.
2. The District Court did not abuse its discretion or violate the parents' constitutional rights by denying the request to reopen the record for evidence of later developments because the parents failed to make an offer of proof and the court properly weighed the need for permanence against the parents' asserted rights.
3. The mother failed to establish ineffective assistance because, although counsel's failure to timely designate the forensic pathologist was deficient, the mother did not show prejudice or a reasonable probability that the testimony would have produced a different termination result.
4. The father failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel's decision to focus on the father's current ability to care for the children rather than relitigate the assault and related medical issues was a reasonable strategic choice, and the alleged omission was not prejudicial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion or violated the parents' constitutional rights by denying their motions to reopen the termination record to add expert testimony and evidence of post-hearing changes in the children's circumstances.
2. Whether the mother established ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to timely designate and provide a report for a forensic pathologist.
3. Whether the father established ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's decision not to relitigate the medical circumstances of Nathaniel's death and instead to present evidence concerning the father's current ability to care for the children.

Disposition

affirmed