•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In In re Daniel C., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, affirmed an order terminating a father's parental rights pursuant to title 22, section 4055 of the Maine Revised Statutes. The issue on appeal concerned the effect of a failure by the Department of Human Services (DHS) to make efforts toward family reunification. The appellant, Daniel C.'s father, Everett Co., argued that the DHS failed to make adequate reunification efforts as required by title 22, section 4041 of the Maine Revised Statutes and that this failure precluded the termination of his parental rights. The Law Court agreed that section 4041 imposed a duty on the DHS to make reunification efforts and that the department's efforts in regard to Daniel C. fell short of the statutory requirements. Nevertheless, the court rejected the appellant's argument that the DHS's failure to make reunification efforts created grounds for denying the termination of his parental rights. The practical effect of the Law Court's decision in In re Daniel C. is that there is no mechanism for enforcing the reunification requirements of section 4041. Thus, the issue arises whether the court's construction of the termination statute is consistent with the Legislature's purpose in enacting the reunification provision of section 4041. In addition, Daniel C. implicates fourteenth amendment due process concerns. The termination of parental rights is a drastic measure. The United States Supreme Court has classified parental rights as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Consequently, when a state seeks to terminate parental rights, it must provide parents with fundamentally fair procedures. There is a question, therefore, whether as a matter of due process reunification efforts should be a prerequisite to the termination of parental rights.

First Page

429

Download

Share

COinS