Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i),(iv), holding that the evidence supported the court’s findings and discretionary determinations.On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s judgment, specifically challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ efforts to rehabilitate her and reunify her with her child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the record (1) supported the court’s finding of at least one ground of unfitness as to Mother, and (2) showed that, despite the Department’s efforts at rehabilitating and reunifying the family, Mother was still unsuccessful at reunifying with her child. View "In re Child of Lindsay D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding John McNutt (Dan) in contempt of the parties’ earlier divorce judgment and increasing his spousal support obligation to Janice McNutt.On appeal, Dan argued that the court erred by (1) finding that he was now able to pay increased spousal support and ordering a temporary increase of that support to $1,750 each month, and (2) not addressing an ambiguity in the divorce judgment and imposing a lien in Janice’s favor, which he alleged rendered him unable to purge his contempt. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) ample competent evidence in the record supported the court’s findings that Dan was in contempt of the property disposition provisions of the divorce judgment and that he received a substantial increase in income due to his disregard of the court’s order to sell or refinance two marital rental properties; and (2) the lien was consistent with the terms of the divorce judgment. View "McNutt v. McNutt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their two children and denying their motions to reopen the record and for relief from judgment.On appeal, Parents asserted that the district court erred by denying their motion to reopen the evidence and by denying their motion under Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court had no discretion to reopen the evidence as to certain testimony, and the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Parents’ motion to reopen to present evidence that Parents claimed was relevant to the issues of parental unfitness and the children’s best interests; and (2) the court did not err by determining that, at an earlier termination hearing, Mother was not prejudiced by her attorney’s ineffective representation and that Father’s counsel’s performance was not deficient in the first place. View "In re Children of Jeremy A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of domestic violence assault and violating a condition of release, holding that certain errors in the jury instructions constituted obvious error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing fully to instruct the jury on the State’s burden to disprove the statutory justifications Defendant produced in defense of the charges or on the consequences of the State’s failure to meet that burden. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed that the trial court’s instructions were deficient, holding that the errors in the jury instructions were highly prejudicial, tending to produce manifest injustice. View "State v. Villacci" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of domestic violence assault and violating a condition of release, holding that certain errors in the jury instructions constituted obvious error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing fully to instruct the jury on the State’s burden to disprove the statutory justifications Defendant produced in defense of the charges or on the consequences of the State’s failure to meet that burden. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed that the trial court’s instructions were deficient, holding that the errors in the jury instructions were highly prejudicial, tending to produce manifest injustice. View "State v. Villacci" on Justia Law

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