## Facts

- Jeffrey E. (born Feb. 1, 1984) suffered recurrent pneumonia, was hospitalized multiple times in 1984–1985, and required a strict treatment regimen after a collapsed lung.
- Linda E. was the primary caregiver; James E. was largely inactive in childcare and household responsibilities.
- Despite medical instructions and in-home nursing support, the parents failed to provide required medications and therapies, and Jeffrey was rehospitalized.
- In July 1985, Jeffrey was removed and placed in foster care; a later protection order awarded custody to the Maine Department of Human Services after findings that return home would place him in jeopardy.
- At foster placement (about 17 months old), Jeffrey showed marked developmental delays; his health and development improved substantially with consistent care.
- The Department attempted reunification through three written service agreements addressing household structure, discipline, hygiene, stimulation of development, and compliance with medical needs.
- The parents repeatedly failed to comply with the service agreements and did not demonstrate the ability to meet Jeffrey’s special medical and developmental needs.
- The Department petitioned to terminate parental rights under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055; the District Court terminated both parents’ rights after an evidentiary hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported statutory grounds under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 that the parents were unable or unwilling to protect Jeffrey from jeopardy or to assume parental responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs.
2. Whether termination of parental rights was in Jeffrey’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the termination order.
- The court held that the record supported, by clear and convincing evidence, findings of jeopardy and parental inability to assume responsibility within a reasonable time given Jeffrey’s needs.
- The court held that termination was in Jeffrey’s best interests, emphasizing his need for stable, consistent medical care and his progress in foster care.
- The court applied a deferential review of the trial court’s factfinding, concluding the findings and ultimate statutory determinations were supported by the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground and that termination is in the child’s best interests.  
- A parent’s inability or unwillingness to follow essential medical treatment for a medically vulnerable child can support a finding that the child would be in jeopardy if returned home.
- Persistent failure to comply with reunification service agreements may support a finding that the parent cannot take responsibility within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs.
- Appellate review examines whether the trial court could reasonably be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence and does not reweigh the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed termination because the parents’ repeated inability to meet Jeffrey’s medical and developmental needs—despite extensive services—showed continued jeopardy and an inability to assume parental responsibility within a reasonable time, and because permanence and consistent care served Jeffrey’s best interests.


In re Jeffrey E., 557 A.2d 954 (Me. 1989)