Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his three children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). On appeal, Father argued that the evidence did not support the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination was in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the district court’s findings were supported by competent evidence in the record and that the court did not err in its determination of unfitness or in determining that termination of Father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Zarianna C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating parents’ parental rights to Bentlee G. pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) and finding jeopardy as to Brenton G. pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035(2). The court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its determination that termination of both parents’ rights was in Bentlee’s best interest; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding of jeopardy as to Brenton; and (3) to the extent that Mother argued that the court erred in terminating her parental rights to Bentlee because the jeopardy order was defective, her contention was unpersuasive. View "In re Bentlee G." on Justia Law

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)-(ii). On appeal, Mother argued that the evidence was insufficient to support both the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. In affirming, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not err in its finding of unfitness as to Mother; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Addilyn R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i),(ii) and, with respect to Father, section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(iv). The court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s findings of unfitness; (2) Father was not deprived of due process when the court denied his motion to continue a hearing on the ground that he was experiencing withdrawal from Suboxone; and (3) the court did not err in admitting evidence of Mother’s drug test results. View "In re Arturo G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her two children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv). The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) there was competent evidence to support the district court’s findings that Mother failed to take responsibility for her children and was unwilling and unable to protect the children from jeopardy, and that both of these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion when it declined to continue the termination hearing for testimony that was cumulative and not likely to affect the judgment. View "In re Alexavier G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her two children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii). Mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s finding of parental unfitness and the determination that termination was in the best interest of the children. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s findings of parental unfitness; and (2) the district court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in its finding and conclusion that termination of Mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Zianna G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their child. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the Department of Health and Human Services satisfied its obligation to provide necessary services to Mother; (2) the district court did not err in finding that Mother was unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for him within a time that was reasonably calculated to meet his needs; and (3) the district court did not err in determining that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Dominyk T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her five children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) district court’s findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) the district court did not err in its finding of parental unfitness and did not err in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the children’s best interests; and (3) contrary to Mother’s arguments, the Department of Health and Human Services complied with Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4041 by providing Mother with home community treatment services. View "In re Aiden J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the probate court terminating Father’s parental rights to his two daughters in anticipation of an adoption. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the probate court’s finding of parental unfitness and its determination of the children’s best interests were not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. Specifically, the court held (1) the record did not include sufficient evidence regarding parental unfitness, the best interests of the children, and the history of the prospective adopting parent; (2) the court improperly excluded Father’s testimony regarding his future plans for reunification with his children; and (3) the court abused its discretion in concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Adoption of Isabelle T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court modifying a divorce judgment to confer sole parental rights and responsibilities on Mother and impose conditions on Father’s contact with the parties’ four children. The court held (1) the district court did not misinterpret or misapply Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1653(3) in prioritizing the children’s safety and well-being when determining the children’s best interests; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in ordering Father to undergo sobriety testing before and during all visits with the children and to have a psychological evaluation and begin any recommended treatment before the children resume overnight visits in his home. View "Miller v. Nery" on Justia Law