## Facts

- Paisley entered state custody at 12 days old (Oct. 2015) and was placed with foster parents Jonathan and Christine DeWick in Maine, where she lived continuously through the contested adoption hearing.
- Alyssa and Robert Chase, who lived in Massachusetts and had adopted two of Paisley’s biological siblings, expressed early interest in adopting Paisley and had limited contact and visits before the hearing.
- After parental rights were terminated by consent, DHHS indicated it intended to place Paisley with the Chases based on a policy favoring sibling placement.
- The DeWicks filed a competing adoption petition (Feb. 2017); DHHS refused to consent to their adoption shortly before the hearing, citing its sibling-placement policy.
- A guardian ad litem recommended adoption by the DeWicks; an attachment expert testified that removing Paisley from the DeWicks risked serious emotional and developmental harm due to her established primary attachment.
- The District Court found DHHS unreasonably withheld consent, overruled the lack of consent, granted the DeWicks’ petition, and denied the Chases’ petition.

## Issues

1. Whether the unsuccessful competing adoptive petitioners (the Chases) had standing to appeal an adoption judgment granting adoption to another petitioner.
2. Whether the trial court correctly found, under 18-A M.R.S. § 9-302(a)(3), that DHHS unreasonably withheld consent to the DeWicks’ adoption, permitting the court to overrule the agency’s refusal.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting (a) expert testimony on child attachment and (b) a photo/video collage offered by the DeWicks.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held the Chases had standing because the judgment directly denied their petition and resolved the adoption dispute adversely to them.
- The Court affirmed the finding that DHHS unreasonably withheld consent, and it upheld the order granting the DeWicks’ adoption and denying the Chases’ petition.
- The Court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the attachment expert’s testimony and no reversible error in admitting the photo/video collage.

## Legal Principles

- When legal custody is held by an agency, written consent to adoption is required unless the court finds the agency unreasonably withheld consent; the petitioner must prove unreasonableness by a preponderance of the evidence. 18-A M.R.S. § 9-302(a)(3) (2017).
- An “unreasonableness” determination may be supported when an agency’s refusal rests primarily on a generalized policy rather than a rational, child-specific assessment of the child’s circumstances and best interests.
- Sibling-placement considerations are relevant but cannot automatically control the adoption decision when credible evidence shows an established primary attachment and a substantial risk of harm from a placement change.
- Trial courts have broad discretion on evidentiary rulings in contested adoptions, including admitting qualified expert testimony on attachment and development.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an adoption by long-term foster parents after concluding that DHHS unreasonably withheld consent by prioritizing a sibling-placement policy over evidence of the child’s established attachment and the likely harm of removal, and it rejected challenges to standing and evidentiary rulings.


Adoption of Paisley, 178 A.3d 1228 (Me. 2018)