Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this divorce action, Husband appealed from the divorce judgment and the judgment denying his motions for a new trial and for relief from the divorce judgment, arguing (1) the district court should have conducted a new trial because he did not attend the final hearing that resulted in the divorce judgment, and (2) the evidence did was not sufficient to demonstrate his ability to pay spousal support in the amount of $6,000 per month. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the two essential elements of due process of law - notice and the opportunity to be heard - were provided in relation to the final hearing, though Husband elected not to heed the notices supplied to him and failed to take advantage of any of his opportunities to be heard; and (2) the court’s award of support was within the bounds of reasonableness. View "Haskell v. Haskell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination of Mother’s parental rights to Ashlyn pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment and the district court’s discretionary determination of Ashlyn’s best interest. Ashlyn, who was thirteen months old at the time of the termination hearing, had lived with her maternal grandparents and her older sister since she was two days old. The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Ashlyn’s best interest. View "In re Ashlyn L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination of Father’s parental rights to his child. The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights to his child more than twenty-two months after the child entered Department custody. The district court terminated Father’s parental rights to the child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A), finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father was unfit to parent the child on three grounds and that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court held that the district court’s unfitness and best interest determinations constituted neither clear error nor an abuse of discretion. View "In re Isabelle W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Brian Danielson’s motion for relief from a post-divorce contempt judgment that had been entered against him. Danielson and Yi Peng were divorced through a judgment establishing that the parties would share parental rights and responsibilities of their minor daughter. Peng later moved for contempt on the ground that Danielson was depriving her of contact with the child. The court found Danielson in contempt. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. Danielson subsequently challenged the judgment finding him in contempt, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide the contempt motion because it had granted a change in venue before holding the contempt hearing. The district court dismissed Danielson’s motion for relief from the contempt judgment as moot. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Danielson’s motion for relief raised no real and substantial controversy. View "Danielson v. Peng" 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)(B)(2), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment. Specifically, the district court did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The child, now almost three and a half years old, was born drug affected. Mother was addicted to prescription drugs and failed to make significant progress in reunifying with the child over the past two years. View "In re River B." on Justia Law

In 2014, Joyce Mitchell filed a complaint for divorce from Alexander Krieckhaus. In 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement. A stipulated order on children’s issues was signed by the court on that date. The court later entered a divorce judgment in which it based the amount of child support upon the parties providing substantially equal care for their son. Mitchell subsequently filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, reconsideration of the child support order, and deviation from the child support guidelines, arguing, inter alia, that before the court issued a child support order it was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the parties provided substantially equal care of their son. The court issued an order denying all of Mitchell’s motions. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of divorce insofar as it established a child support obligation to be paid by Mitchell and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that issue, holding that the court erred in finding that the parties had agreed to a substantially equal care arrangement with regard to their son without providing the parties with a meaningful opportunity to present evidence on this issue. View "Mitchell v. Krieckhaus" on Justia Law

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