Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court denying Father’s Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment after the court granted Mother’s motion to modify a parental rights and responsibilities order regarding the parties’ son. On appeal, Father argued that the court erred in denying his motion because (1) after another state assumed jurisdiction over the child custody matter, Maine necessarily lost jurisdiction over that matter; and (2) the court erred by not allowing him to present facts and legal arguments to the court before a decision on jurisdiction was made. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) Maine maintained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the child custody matter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1746(1); and (2) the court acted within the confines of section 1740(2), and because Father on two occasions had already presented facts and legal arguments regarding jurisdiction, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father a third opportunity to address the matter. View "Fitzpatrick v. McCrary" 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 the evidence supported the district court’s finding of parental unfitness. Specifically, the Court held that the district court’s findings that Father was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs and failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with him were based on competent evidence in the record. Therefore, the court did not err in its determination of unfitness. View "In re Child of Daniel Q." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(b) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The Court held (1) the district court did not err by invoking the “rebuttable presumption” contained in Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1-A)(A), (B)(8) in its unfitness analysis because the evidence in its entirety supported a finding of unfitness; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Gustavus E." 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), (ii), (iv). The Court held (1) the district court’s findings were sufficient to support the court’s conclusion that Father was unable to protect his child from jeopardy, was unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and did not make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. View "In re Child of Nuradin A." on Justia Law

The district court did not err in granting Plaintiff’s petition for a protection from abuse order against Defendant, her boyfriend.After a hearing, the district court found that Defendant had abused Plaintiff and issued a two-year protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err or disregard substantial evidence in its ultimate finding that Defendant abused Plaintiff; and (2) the district court’s application of the best evidence rule, Me. R. Evid. 1002, was not in error when it required Defendant to allow Plaintiff to review either printed copies or the electronic versions of emails and texts prior to his cross-examination of her. View "Deah v. Cuthbert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii). The Court also affirmed the judgment of the district court finding jeopardy to the parents’ daughter’s health and welfare pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035. Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence in the record supported the court’s findings of parental unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination of the parents’ parental rights was in their son’s best interest; and (2) the court’s jeopardy findings as to the daughter were supported by competent evidence in the record. View "In re Children of Alice R." on Justia Law

The Supreme 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) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The Court held (1) the district court’s finding that Father was incapable of alleviating jeopardy or providing adequate care for the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet her needs was supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) the district court’s other specific findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record; and (3) the district court did not err in its unfitness determination or abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Eric K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her daughter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv). The Court held (1) all of the district court’s findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) given the court’s specific findings of fact, the court did not err in its finding of parental unfitness, nor did it abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest; and (3) there was ample evidence in the record that the Department of Human Services made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify the family. View "In re Child of Heather W." 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), (ii), (iv). Contrary to Father’s contention, each of the district court’s unfitness findings was supported by competent evidence in the record. Further, Father’s additional arguments that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the hearing on the petition to terminate Father’s parental rights and abused its discretion when it denied his attorney’s motion to withdraw were without merit. View "In re Child of Nicholas M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the amended judgment entered in the district court granting Edward Manter’s motion to modify and amending the parties’ 2008 divorce judgment as amended. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion or err when it modified the parents’ rights of contract; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Manter’s motion for amended or additional findings; and (3) because the record was devoid of evidence regarding interim child support payments, it could not be determined whether the district court erred when it determined that Master was nearly $11,000 in arrears of his child support obligation. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. View "Boyd v. Manter" on Justia Law