Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In this divorce action, the district court failed to set forth adequate findings on the issues raised by Appellant in a Me. R. Civ. P. 52 motion regarding spousal support and property classification.On appeal from a divorce judgment, Appellant argued that the district court erred when it failed to classify certain real estate as marital or nonmarital and abused its discretion in its award of spousal support. The Supreme Court held (1) the denial of Appellant’s Me. R. Civ. P. 52 motion regarding the property classification was an abuse of discretion because the court neither set forth adequate findings on this issue in its judgment nor made findings on the issue raised by Appellant in his Rule 52 motion; and (2) the court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s Rule 52 motion as it pertained to the spousal support award. View "Mooar v. Greenleaf" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services initiated a child protection proceeding. The court entered a preliminary protection order and placed Corey in Department custody on April 22, 2017, the day the child was born. After a contested hearing the district court entered a jeopardy order with respect to Corey, including a provision, based on the court’s finding that continued reunification services were inconsistent with the permanence plan, relieving the Department of its obligation to provide Corey’s mother with reunification services under 22 M.R.S. 4041(2)(A-2)(2). The court made findings that the mother has been diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder and struggles with daily functioning and social interactions. According to her psychiatric nurse practitioner, the mother can do no more than manage her own activities of daily living; she has been living at a homeless shelter for seven years and cannot live there with a child, nor could she live in a group home with a child. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, finding that the determination of jeopardy was supported by the evidence. View "In re Corey T." on Justia Law

At issue was the application of the consent to adoption statute, Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 9-302, to contested adoption proceedings heard in the district court following a district court judgment terminating parental rights concerning the child.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding that Foster Parents had met their burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Department of Health and Human Services had acted unreasonably in withholding its consent to their adoption of Child. Because Child’s parents’ rights had been terminated and because the Department had legal custody of Child, section 9-302(a)(3) required that the Department’s written consent had to be obtained before any adoption could be granted. After a hearing, the district court found that the Department unreasonably withheld its consent to Foster Parents’ adoption petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the evidence in the record supported the trial court’s findings and discretionary determinations. View "In re Adoption of Paisley" 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)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv). On appeal, Father argued that the district court erred by finding that he was unfit as a parent and abused its discretion by determining that termination of his parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the district court’s findings that Father was unfit as a parent had support from competent evidence in the record; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re James C." on Justia Law