Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Melody Boulette and Richard Boulette were divorced pursuant to a judgment that granted the parties shared parental rights and responsibilities and shared residence with respect to their two sons. Richard subsequently moved to modify the divorce judgment, seeking primary residence of the children. While that motion was pending, Melody sought and received a temporary protection from abuse order. The district court subsequently entered a final protection from abuse order barring Richard from having contact with Melody or the children subject to a future family court action. Thereafter, following a hearing, the district court issued an amended protection from abuse order that reinstated the contact schedule created by the parties’ divorce judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) dismissed Richard’s appeal of the temporary protection from abuse order and the final protection from abuse order, as these appeals were untimely; and (2) affirmed the judgment amending the final protection from abuse order. View "Boulette v. Boulette" on Justia Law

In 2011, the district court issued a parental rights and responsibilities judgment pertaining to the minor child of Mother and Father. The judgment granted primary physical residence to Father and mode provisions for Mother’s continued contact with the child. After Father purposefully misled Mother about the child’s location and Mother was unable to see the child for over five months, Mother filed a motion to modify the order. The district court granted the motion and changed the child’s primary residence to being with Mother. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a modification of the parental rights and responsibilities order was in the child’s best interest. View "Clark v. Leeman" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court court terminated both Mother’s and Father’s rights to their four minor children. Mother and Father both appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in entering a judgment terminating the parents’ right because the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of at least one ground of unfitness as to each parent and that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. View "In re Cameron Z." on Justia Law

In 2012, Wife instituted divorce proceedings against Husband on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The district court divided the parties’ assets and debts, awarded Wife spousal support, and denied Wife’s requests for retroactive interim support and attorney fees. Thereafter, Wife filed a motion purporting to request further findings of fact and conclusions of law, a new trial, and alteration or amendment of the judgment. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Wife’s motion did not comply with the requirements of Me. R. Civ. P. 52(b), and therefore, the court did not err by denying relief. View "Eremita v. Marchiori" on Justia Law

In 2006, Mark Amero and Maria Amero divorced. The district court entered a divorce judgment that ordered Mark to pay Maria general spousal support. The award was subject to the condition that it terminate upon Maria’s remarriage or cohabitation with an adult partner. In 2015, Mark filed a motion to modify the spousal support award on the grounds that Maria was cohabiting with an adult partner. The trial court found that Maria was cohabiting with an adult partner and ordered determination of the spousal support award pursuant to the divorce judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence supporting the court’s finding of cohabitation, and the finding of cohabitation provided a sufficient basis for the district court’s decision to terminate the support award. View "Amero v. Amero" on Justia Law

Catherine Brochu and Richard McLeod were married in 1970 and had two children. In 1977, the parties executed a separation agreement setting forth McLeod’s child and spousal support obligations. McLeod, who was in the United States Marine Corps, went into hiding after executing the separation agreement. From 1977 to the time of this case, McLeod never made a child or spousal support payment. In 1979, the court issued a divorce judgment incorporating the settlement agreement. After locating McLeod in 2014, Brochu filed a motion to enforce the nearly forty years’ overdue support payments. McLeod moved to dismiss the complaint based on the affirmative defense of laches. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of dismissal to the extent that the court’s conclusions are founded upon the application of the doctrine of laches, holding (1) the doctrine of laches may be asserted as a defense to spousal support arrearages but is inapplicable to child support arrearages; and (2) the court did not properly apply the doctrine of laches to the spousal support arrearages in this case. View "Brochu v. McLeod" on Justia Law

After her divorce from Robert Ballou was final, Gina Childs sought a protection from abuse order against Ballou. A protection order was entered upon the parties’ agreement without a finding of abuse. The district court later granted Childs a two-year extension of the protection from abuse order. Ballou appealed, raising multiple issues. The Supreme Court discerned no error in the district court’s order and wrote only to address Ballou’s argument that the court-ordered restrictions on Ballou’s communications with Childs violated his Firth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in prohibiting Ballou from having any direct or indirect contact with Childs and requiring that rights of contact with the parties’ child be arranged and facilitated by a third party. View "Childs v. Ballou" on Justia Law

Four days before they were married, Sharon and Ronald Blanchard executed a premarital agreement, which governed the equitable distribution of property and the award of spousal support. Twenty-six years later, Sharon filed for divorce. The district court gave full force and effect to the premarital agreement and entered a judgment of divorce. Sharon appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that the premarital agreement was valid. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the facts of this case support the conclusion that the agreement was not invalid or unconscionable; and (2) Sharon’s remaining arguments on appeal were without merit. View "Blanchard v. Blanchard" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his child. After a hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights on the grounds of unfitness and found that termination was in the best interest of the child. Father appealed, arguing that the court erroneously terminated his parental rights based only on the fact of his incarceration. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported the court’s findings that Father could not protect his child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs. View "In re Alijah K." on Justia Law

Kyle Dietrich and Hilary Dietrich were divorced in 2011 pursuant to a judgment that granted the parties shared parental rights and responsibilities of their three children and did not order either party to pay child support. The court subsequently entered an amended judgment ordering Kyle to pay child support of $177 per week, beginning in 2012. In 2015, a magistrate entered an amended judgment and a final child support order directing Kyle to pay child support of $305 per week. Kyle filed an objection to the magistrate’s order, which the district court denied as untimely filed. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Kyle’s appeal, holding that the district court correctly concluded that Kyle’s objection was untimely filed. View "Dietrich v. Dietrich" on Justia Law