Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mother’s two children were removed from Mother’s care because of her substance abuse and consequent neglect. More than two and a half years later, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her children. Mother appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) contrary to Mother’s assertion, the district court’s judgment was the product of the proper exercise of its judicial function and was not defective; (2) the district court mistakenly relied on the reports of a guardian ad litem, but the error was harmless; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the termination of Mother’s parental rights. View "In re Caleb M." on Justia Law

Edward Harshman instituted divorce proceedings against Sheila Harshman. Sheila counterclaimed for divorce. The court (1) adopted the parties’ agreement as to parental rights and contact, therefore awarding Sheila sole parental rights to the parties’ children; (2) divided the parties’ assets and debts; and (3) calculated Edward’s child support and spousal support obligations. Edward appealed from the divorce judgment, challenging the court’s exclusion of certain evidence at trial and the court’s calculation of the parties’ respective incomes for child support and spousal support purposes. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s exclusion of the evidence and in calculating each spouses’ income. View "Harshman v. Harshman" on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who were never married, were the parents of two minor children. Mother filed a complaint seeking a determination of parental rights and responsibilities. The court ultimately awarded sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary residence to Mother with rights of contact to Father. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not commit clear error in its factual findings or abuse its discretion in its ultimate conclusion; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Father to participate in a psychological examination before having any contact with his children. View "Vibert v. Dimoulas" on Justia Law

Father was awarded sole legal custody of his daughter (Daughter) in 2006. In 2010, Father arranged for Daughter to live with his stepmother (Stepmother). Stepmother was subsequently appointed Daughter’s full, permanent guardian. Approximately four years later, Father filed a petition to terminate the guardianship, alleging that Stepmother had denied him normal contact rights with Daughter. After a hearing, the court denied Father’s petition to terminate the guardianship. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the judgment denying Father’s petition to terminate the guardianship, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s denial of Father’s petition; but (2) remanded the case for the court to reconsider the portion of its order requiring Father to pay guardian ad litem fees as a sanction, holding that several aspects of the court’s order in this case compromised the Court’s ability to undertake meaningful review. View "In re Guardianship of Alisha K. Golodner" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the parents of two minor daughters. At the time Father filed a complaint for determination of parental rights and responsibilities and child support, the girls were residing with him. The children had been residing with Mother until the month before Father’s filing. In October 2015, the district court entered a parental rights and responsibilities order that awarded Father primary physical residence of the children. Mother appealed, arguing that the district court erred in considering and relying upon evidence offered in a separate proceeding concerning the same parties. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with Mother and vacated the judgment establishing parental rights and responsibilities, holding that the lower court erred in relying on the prior, separate body of evidence absent the consent of the parties or another legitimate evidentiary basis, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "Cabral v. L'Heureux" on Justia Law

In 2008, a divorce decree issued pursuant to the agreement of Husband and Wife requiring Husband to pay Wife monthly spousal support of $3,000 until he turned sixty years old. Federal law went into effect shortly before the entry of the divorce judgment, pursuant to which Husband’s mandatory retirement age increased from age sixty to sixty-five. Husband continued working after turning sixty. Wife filed a motion to modify spousal support, arguing that, at the time the divorce judgment was entered, she expected that Husband would not work beyond age sixty. The district court granted the motion based on its determination that the modification was warranted by a substantial change in circumstances after the divorce decree was issued. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the spousal support provisions of the divorce judgment so as to maintain the previous amount of Husband’s spousal support obligation until he turns sixty-five years old. View "Savage v. Savage" on Justia Law

Two days after the birth of Child, the district court granted a preliminary protection order as against both Mother and Father, and Child was placed in foster care. The Department of Health and Human Services later filed a petition for termination of parental rights. After a contested hearing on the petition as to Mother, the court issued a judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights, finding that Mother was unable to protect Child from jeopardy and was unable to take responsibility for him and would not be able to do either within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs. The court further found that termination was in Child’s best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court’s findings and ultimate best interest determination were supported by the record and did not reflect an abuse of discretion. View "In re Kenneth S." on Justia Law

Wife filed for divorce from Husband after six years of marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The district court entered a divorce judgment dividing the parties’ property, awarding child support to Wife, denying spousal support in favor of Wife, and denying Wife’s request for attorney fees. Wife filed several post-judgment motions, without success. On appeal, Wife took a “buckshot approach,” arguing numerous substantive and procedural issues in the apparent effort that “something will stick.” The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that any potentially meritorious points on appeal, if any exist, have been listed in the fog of insubstantial and unsupportable objections to the trial process and the trial court’s decision. View "Millay v. McKay" on Justia Law

Husband initiated divorce proceedings from Wife in Sweden. Wife objected to the proceedings, asserting that the Swedish court did not have personal jurisdiction over her. The Swedish court subsequently stayed the action for a six-month “reconsideration period.” While the Swedish action was in the reconsideration period, Wife initiated a divorce action in Maine. Husband moved to dismiss the complaint for forum non conveniens. The district court denied Husband’s motion. Thereafter, the Swedish court entered a divorce judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. The Maine court then dismissed Wife’s complaint on the grounds that the Swedish judgment was a complete bar to Wife’s divorce action. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the Maine court’s judgment to the extent it dismissed the portion of Wife’s complaint seeking dissolution of her marriage; but (2) vacated the judgment insofar as it dismissed Wife’s remaining claims for spousal support, division of marital property, and reasonable attorney fees, holding that it was premature for the district court to address these issues where the Swedish court had yet to address them. View "Lynch v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Mother appealed from the district court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s findings that Mother was unable to protect her daughter from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child in a reasonable time were sufficient to allow for appellate review; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s determination that Mother was unable to take responsibility for her daughter and would not be able to do so in a reasonable time; (3) the court did not err by finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unable to protect her daughter from jeopardy and would not be able to do so in a reasonable time; and (4) there was no error or abuse of discretion in the court’s finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Aubrey R." on Justia Law