Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the district court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in determining that the termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest when the child was placed in a permanency guardianship with his paternal grandparents and Father’s parental rights were not terminated. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding unfitness and determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest, despite the establishment of a permanency guardianship and Father’s retention of his parental rights. View "In re Child of Emily K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Appellant did not have standing to pursue a claim for visitation rights with her grandchild pursuant to the Grandparents Visitation Act (GVA), Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1801-1805.Appellant, the grandmother of the child at issue, filed a petition to establish grandparents’ rights pursuant to the GVA, seeking specific rights of visitation and/or primary physical residence of the child. The district court concluded that Appellant had not established standing because she failed to make a prima facie showing of de facto parentage as required under the GVA to proceed on her petition. On appeal, Appellant argued, inter alia, that the court erred in finding that she did not have standing to proceed as a putative de facto parent. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not establish standing to proceed to a hearing on her petition pursuant to the GVA or the statutory requirements of a de facto parenthood claim. View "Lamkin v. Lamkin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their three children while also approving a permanency guardianship as a possible permanency plan.After Parents’ parental rights were terminated, they appealed. Parents did not contest the district court’s determination that they were unfit as the children’s parents but argued that the court erred by determining that termination was in the children’s best interests because the court also ordered a permanency plan that included either adoption or a permanency guardianship. In affirming, the Supreme Judicial Court held that, under the circumstances of this case, termination of Parents’ parental rights was not inconsistent with a permanency guardianship. View "In re Children of Nicole M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the child support order and the associated part of the divorce judgment in this case and remanded to the trial court for clarification because the child support order and the judgment were inconsistent with each other and there was an error in the court’s establishment of Father’s monthly child support obligation.Father filed a motion to modify the parties’ amended divorce judgment. The district court granted Father’s motion to modify and modified his schedule of contact with the parties’ child and his child support obligation. The Supreme Court vacated the child support order and provisions of judgment governing child support, holding that the inconsistency in the child support order and the judgment, combined with the unsupported determination that Father must pay $200 per month in child support, made effective appellate review impossible. View "Papadopoulos v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant’s complaint seeking to be determined a de facto parent of her grandson. The district court concluded, after a contested hearing, that Appellant failed to establish that she had standing to proceed to a plenary hearing. Specifically, the court found that Appellant did not present prima facie evidence that the child resided with her for a significant period of time or that the mother regarded Appellant as a parent to the child. The court further concluded that the best interest of the child was insufficient to confer standing on Appellant. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding (1) the court was required to dismiss the complaint because Appellant did not have standing to proceed with her de facto parenthood claim; and (2) the court did not hold Appellant to a greater standard than that to which an unrelated third party would be held. View "Davis v. McGuire" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv), holding that Father failed to present a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the record evidence supported the court’s findings and discretionary determinations.On appeal, Father argued that his counsel’s withdrawal two months before the termination hearing amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that Father did not demonstrate prejudice from counsel’s performance. View "In re Child of Stephen E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment entered by the probate court granting the petition of Ella’s maternal grandmother for temporary guardianship, holding that the evidence did not support the court’s finding of a “temporarily intolerable” living situation for Ella.The probate court’s finding that a temporarily intolerable situated existed as to Ella living with her mother, Nicole, rested on its finding that Nicole’s home was not appropriate due to the limited amount of time she had been there and the existence of at least one pit bull dog, as well as Nicole’s testimony that she intended to stay at that home. The Supreme Judicial court held that these reasons were insufficient, as a matter of law, to justify an intrusion into Nicole’s fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of her child. View "In re Guardianship of Ella M. Grenier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to two of her children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv).On appeal, Mother argued that the district court abused its discretion in proceeding with the termination hearing despite her request to replace her court-appointed counsel. Mother did not challenge the court’s findings of parental unfitness and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court held that, on the facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the termination hearing. View "In re Children of Tasha R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court denying the maternal grandmother’s petition to adopt Parker J., granting the adoption to Parker’s paternal grandmother on her petition, and also granting adoption, despite the lack of a petition, to the paternal grandmother’s partner.This adoption proceeding followed the termination of the parental rights of Parker’s biological parents. The court denied the adoption petitions of the material grandmother and material grandfather and granted the adoption petition of the paternal grandmother while also granting an adoption to the partner of the paternal grandmother. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment because (1) the paternal grandmother’s partner did not petition for adoption and had no formal commitment to Parker or even to the paternal grandmother, and (2) the trial court considered and decided the matter treating the paternal grandmother and her partner as if they were joint petitioners. View "Adoption of Parker J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her children, holding that the record supported the finding of parental unfitness. Specifically, the Court held (1) based on the facts found by the district court, all of which had evidentiary support, the court did not err finding that Mother remained unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet their needs; and (2) the court did not err in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. View "In re Children of Dani B." on Justia Law