In re Child of Rebecca R.

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment terminating both parents' parental rights under Maine's child-protection statute. The court upheld findings of parental unfitness and that termination was in the child's best interest, rejected the mother's constitutional claims, and found no error in limiting the pastor's testimony or in treating the father's sleep pattern as a lifestyle choice rather than a disability. The court also affirmed the denial of the mother's motion for relief from judgment.

Holdings

1. The District Court's findings that both parents were unfit and that termination was in the child's best interest were supported by competent evidence and were not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.
2. The court did not reach the mother's substantive due process and equal protection claims because they rested on the faulty premise that her parental rights were terminated solely because she could not afford housing.
3. The District Court did not commit obvious error by limiting the pastor's testimony to factual matters and declining to permit him to testify as an expert concerning the parents' counseling.
4. The father's ADA and Maine Human Rights Act accommodation claim was unpreserved because he did not request an accommodation, and the record alternatively supported the finding that his sleep pattern was a correctable lifestyle choice rather than a disability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the District Court's findings that each parent was unfit under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), and (iv).
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a).
3. Whether termination of the mother's parental rights violated substantive due process or equal protection because of her alleged inability to finance suitable housing.
4. Whether the District Court erred by refusing to qualify the parents' pastor as an expert witness concerning counseling.
5. Whether the District Court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or Maine Human Rights Act by failing to accommodate the father's asserted disability related to his sleep pattern.

Disposition

affirmed