The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated an order terminating a mother’s parental rights, finding she had received a court-appointed representative without notice or a hearing.

The mother, identified in public court records as Mindy, lost her parental rights during a hearing in Augusta District Court last fall after a guardian ad litem, appointed to represent her, waived them.

The state had filed a petition two years earlier seeking a protective order for her 2-year-old. A judge agreed to temporarily give the state custody shortly afterward. Months later, while both sides were working on a reunification agreement, a different judge appointed the guardian ad litem to make decisions on the mother’s behalf after her attorney called his client “dysregulated” and said she had disappeared at one point to go to Florida.

The mother had been involuntarily hospitalized for depression and anxiety around the same time, according to the court’s order.

An attorney for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services argued in March that the mother had not been taking her medication or reliably visiting with the child, “and some of the contact that they did have was upsetting to the child.”

Her appellate attorney, Taylor Kilgore, told the high court in March that the Augusta judge never held a hearing or considered clinical evidence on the mother’s ability to participate in the court process. Kilgore said the guardian ad litem agreed to an order, finding the mother put her child in danger, and gave up her parental rights.

“Just because a parent may have a mental illness does not mean that they are not competent,” Kilgore said on Thursday. “Mindy wasn’t provided a fair process. And the law court recognized that and needed to make sure that this goes back and that she gets that fair process.”

Kilgore said she was pleased with the court’s ruling, including the detailed process that justices laid out for how guardians ad litem, also known as GALs, are supposed to be appointed.

“There’s a lot of guidance here that we didn’t have before,” she said.

The justices said they have “every reason to conclude” that the GAL, who is not identified in the order, was attempting to represent the mother’s best interests. Had the mother fought the termination order, according to the court’s ruling, it might have been used against her in future appeals or cases involving any other children. A new Maine law prevents involuntarily issued termination orders from being used against a parent.

But, the high court ruled the appointment was done without due process.

“The violation of the mother’s rights when her GAL was appointed was plain and consequential,” the justices wrote. 

Justices ordered that the Augusta District Court redo the termination process and an earlier “jeopardy” hearing, during which the state has to prove that a parent placed a child in danger. The lower court was also ordered to hold a competency hearing, considering clinical evidence and any response from the mother, before it can appoint a GAL.

During oral arguments, one justice, Jeffrey Hjelm, pointed out that there were 10 different judges who oversaw hearings and orders throughout Mindy’s case.

In its order, the high court stated it was unclear why this was, but that it was “not the best practice” that a different judge signed the GAL’s appointment order from the original judge who heard the request.

Barbara Cardone, a spokesperson for the courts, said in an email Thursday that the appointment order was not public, and that it was “not appropriate to question a judge about a pending case.”