Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Husband and Wife had been married for about seventeen years when Wife filed a complaint for divorce. After a trial, the district court entered a divorce judgment granting the parties a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable marital differences. Husband appealed, challenging the court’s division of the marital property. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in its consideration of the factors required by Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 19-A 953(1)-(3); (2) did not clearly err in its findings of fact; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate. View "Hutt v. Hanson" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children. The parents appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother’s and Father’s arguments that the court erred in faulting them for their failures to fulfill adequately the requirements of their reunification plans failed because they did not have support in the record and were based on a misapprehension of the district court’s reasoning; and (2) the record supported the court’s findings of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in the best interest of the children. View "In re Magdalena F." on Justia Law

Stephen Cushing and Ann Cushing were divorced in 2011. In 2014, Stephen filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment’s child contact schedule and child support provision. In 2015, due to Stephen’s continued failure to comply with court orders, the court dismissed Stephen’s motion with prejudice and established a procedure to determine the final amount of the attorney fee award to Ann. Stephen appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal was untimely and that Stephen failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was entitled to an extension of time for filing the appeal. View "Cushing v. Cushing" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her child. After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights, determining by clear and convincing evidence that the Department proved at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in the best interest of the child. Mother appealed, challenging the court’s findings and asserting that she was denied effective assistance of counsel during the termination proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court’s judgment was supported by the evidence; and (2) Mother failed to present a prima facie case of attorney ineffectiveness. View "In re Aliyah M." on Justia Law