Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their child pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2). The court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s determinations that the parents failed to ameliorate the issues of substance abuse, unhealthy relationships, and violence that resulted in the removal of the child from their care, and thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the parents were unfit; and (2) the court’s discretionary determination that termination was in the child’s best interest was not error or an abuse of discretion. View "In re Bradyn B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their minor child. After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that the parents were unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time calculated to meet the child’s needs. The court further found that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the findings of parental unfitness were supported but he evidence and that the court did not err in determining that termination of the parents’ parental rights will serve the child’s best interest. View "In re Ryder C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child. Contrary to Mother’s contentions, the court held (1) Mother was not deprived of due process because the district court afforded her sufficient notice of the termination hearing before terminating her parental rights and did not place undue weight not he earlier termination of Mother’s rights to another child; and (2) the court’s findings were sufficient as a matter of law, and the court’s judgment was the “result of the application of independent judicial thought to the process of making fact-findings and conclusions.” View "In re Zoey H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her two minor children. On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s findings that the children could not wait for permanency and that Mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify. Mother also challenged the court’s determination that termination of her parental rights - not the creation of a permanency guardianship - was in the best interest of her children. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the evidence supported the court’s findings and discretionary determinations. View "In re Haylie W." on Justia Law

The district court terminated father’s parental rights, 22 M.R.S. 4055(1)(B)(2), finding, by clear and convincing evidence that he is unfit; that termination of his parental rights was in the children’s best interest; and that the permanency plan for the children would be adoption. The mother of the boys was previously found to have abandoned them. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, finding that the evidence supported finding that father is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs; is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for them within that timeframe; and failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children. The court noted father’s incarceration until at least July 2017, the testimony of mental health experts that the children “are very damaged, ” father’s history of substance abuse, including while he was incarcerated, which delayed his release, and his inconsistent communication with the children. The court noted extensive testimony about the need for permanency and stability for the children. View "In re: Mathew H." on Justia Law

The court terminated mother’s parental rights, 22 M.R.S. 4055(1)(A),(B), finding that she is unfit to parent the children because she has abandoned them, she is unwilling and unable to protect them from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs, and she has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with them. The court also terminated the parental rights of the father of each child. Mother did not challenge the findings relating to termination of her rights but claimed that the children’s current placement, with their maternal grandparents, is unsafe, and that permanent placement there would not be in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, noting that the best interests determination in connection with the termination of mother’s parental rights was not a determination of who will adopt the children or that any particular placement is in their best interests. To the extent that mother seeks to challenge the court’s order identifying adoption as the permanency plan, 22 M.R.S. 4038-B(3), that order is interlocutory and not appealable. View "In re: Dominic B." on Justia Law

Kimberly Heilig appealed from a judgment of the district court divorcing her from Ernest Neri, dividing the parties’ assets, ordering Neri to pay Heilig’s spousal support for three years, and ordering Neri to pay $2,000 toward Heilig’s attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err in finding that real estate purchased by Neri during the marriage was nonmarital property; (2) did not abuse its discretion in calculating Heilig’s spousal support award; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by awarding Heilig a lesser amount of legal fees than she requested. View "Neri v. Heilig" on Justia Law

Mother appealed from a judgment of divorce entered in the district court, arguing that the provision requiring each parent to transport, or allow the other parent to transport, the parties’ children to extracurricular activities violated her constitutionally-protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of her children. The provision was entered after a dispute between the parents over the children’s level of involvement in a developmental soccer league. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) a court order that allows one parent to make the decision on a disputed child-related issue does not violate the constitutional rights of either parent; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that continued participation in soccer was in each child’s best interest, or in ordering the default transportation provision. View "Mills v. Fleming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to Skyler, Rosalee, and Austin, and Father’s parental rights to Rosalee and Austin pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii). The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents were unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs, that they were unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs, and that termination of Parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Parents’ parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in each child’s best interest. View "In re Skyler F." on Justia Law

The district court did not err in finding jeopardy as to both Mother and Father and ordering that Child be placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4036(1)(F). The court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that as to both parents, Child was in circumstances of jeopardy to her health and welfare. Mother did not challenge the finding of jeopardy as to her. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) a dispositional order of custody is not appealable; and (2) the court’s finding that Child was more likely than not in circumstances of jeopardy in Father’s care was supported by competent record evidence. View "In re Kaliyah B." on Justia Law