Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2014, when Cameron was almost one year old, the Department of Health and Human Services obtained a preliminary protection order placing the child in the Department’s custody. The district court made a finding of jeopardy as to both parents based on their substance abuse. In 2016, the Department filed a second petition to terminate the parental rights of both Mother and Father. After a hearing, the court terminated both parents’ parental rights to Cameron. Both parents appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the best interest of the child. View "In re Cameron B." on Justia Law

In 2001, Steven Dunwoody and Janice Dunwoody were divorced. Steven was ordered to pay child support. Steven never paid child support, but the parties’ children received dependent benefits based on Steven’s disability. In 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice of debt. Steven then filed a motion seeking a modification of his child support obligation and a declaration that he did not owe any arrearages. The magistrate granted Steven’s motion to modify child support but denied his request for a declaration that he did not owe past support. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the magistrate did not err in determining that Steven owed a child support arrearage of $21,978; and (2) the magistrate did not err in determining that there was no legal or equitable theory that would be a defense to Janice’s attempt to collect on that debt. View "Dunwoody v. Dunwoody" on Justia Law

Jessica Lisio and Tammy Thorndike, who lives as a man, began a relationship in 2005 when Lisio’s son, Caden, was one year old. In 2009, Arianna was born to Lisio, who was artificially inseminated. That same year, Lisio and Thorndike registered as domestic partners. In 2012, Thorndike moved out. In 2014, Thorndike filed a complaint for a determination of paternity and parental rights and responsibilities. Thorndike subsequently moved to amend his complaint to allege de facto parenthood. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Thorndike was a de facto parent and then entered a parental rights and responsibilities order that provided for the children’s primary residence to be with Lisio and for the children to have contact with Thorndike on a gradually increasing schedule. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in finding that Thorndike was the de facto parent of Caden and Arianna. View "Thorndike v. Lisio" on Justia Law

In 2012, the probate court appointed Aunt as the guardian of Child and awarded Grandmother rights of contact with Child. In 2015 and 2016, Aunt and Grandmother filed motions relating to the terms of the guardianships and Grandmother’s contact rights. The probate court denied the motions after a hearing. Further, upon Grandmother’s motion, the court found Aunt’s attorney (Attorney) in contempt and imposed sanctions against her. Both Aunt and Attorney appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the order denying Aunt’s motion, holding that there was no error in the court’s factual determinations; but (2) vacated the contempt finding and order of sanctions against Attorney, holding that Grandmother’s motion did not satisfy the procedural requirements of Me. R. Civ. P. 66(d)(2)(C), and the court did not implement the process required by that rule. View "Guardianship of Isabella Ard" on Justia Law

In a divorce judgment, the district court awarded Mother the right to provide the parties’ minor child’s primary residence. Mother moved to modify the terms of the divorce judgment and later moved to enforce the divorce judgment. The court denied Mother’s motion to enforce the divorce but did modify the terms of the divorce judgment. Mother appealed, arguing that the court erred in interpreting the divorce judgment concerning her authority to take the child on an annual trip to Brazil and violated her fundamental right to parent by modifying the divorce judgment to award the parental grandparents contact with the child. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) because the divorce judgment unambiguously provided for the child’s annual travel to Brazil, the denial of the motion to enforce the judgment and the court’s modification of that provision were error; and (2) before a court may grant a third party contact with a child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A 1653(2)(B), the third party must file both a motion to intervene in the matter and his or her own motion seeking such contact, and these requirements were not met as to the paternal grandparents in this case. Remanded. View "Curtis v. Medeiros" on Justia Law

The district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his child, determining that Father was parentally unfit within the meaning of the child protection statutes and that termination was in the child’s best interest. Father appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s determinations. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence supported the court’s ultimate finding of parental unfitness; and (2) given the evidence in the record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Carlos C." on Justia Law

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