Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Child’s mother died, Child’s maternal grandparents (Grandparents) petitioned for coguardianship of Child, alleging that Father had never provided direct care for Child, was unable to care for her, and had demonstrated a lack of consistent participation in Child’s life. The probate court court granted the petition for Child’s guardianship as to the maternal grandmother and denied it as to the maternal grandfather. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the probate court’s conclusions that Father demonstrated a lack of consistent participation in Child’s life and that Father remained unable to care for Child at the time of the hearing on the petition. View "In re Guardianship of Thayer" on Justia Law

In 2008, Richard and Suzan Collins were divorced. In 2009, the court issued an amended judgment that contained an order of enforcement. In 2014, the court held Richard in contempt for failing to comply with the payment obligations created by the 2009 order. Two months after the court issued the contempt order, Richard filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Later that year, the Bankruptcy Court issued a discharge in bankruptcy. Suzan then filed a request for a show cause hearing, asserting that Richard had not made the payments required by the 2014 contempt order. Richard moved to dismiss Suzan’s request for the show cause hearing on the grounds that, aside from his child support debt, all of his financial obligations had been discharged in the bankruptcy action. After a show cause hearing, the district court denied Richard’s motion to dismiss and confirmed his payment obligations as ordered in the contempt order. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Richard’s obligations under the divorce judgment were statutorily insulated from a post-judgment bankruptcy discharge, and Richard remained liable to Suzan and for payments to a third-party creditor. Therefore, the district court did not err by enforcing the contempt order that pre-dated the bankruptcy discharge. View "Collins v. Collins" on Justia Law

In 2015, the district court entered a judgment of divorce and parental rights and responsibilities regarding the minor son of Husband and Wife. Husband appealed, arguing that the district court erred in determining his gross income and abused its discretion in distributing the parties’ marital property and awarding spousal support. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the court’s child support order and underlying gross income determination, as the divorce judgment contained no findings regarding Husband’s income, and therefore, the Court could not decide whether the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous; (2) vacated the order of spousal support, as the determination of Husband’s income provides a foundation for any award of spousal support; and (3) vacated the order distributing the parties’ property, as the district court must consider the determination of Husband’s income in crafting an equitable distribution of the parties’ assets and liabilities and must consider the consequences of its distributive order in assessing any award of spousal support. View "Ehret v. Ehret" on Justia Law

After Father’s one-year-old child was hospitalized for ingesting a strip of Suboxone while in Father’s care, Father was removed from the home pursuant to a Department of Health and Human Services safety plan. Father was subsequently arrested and incarcerated. The district court ultimately terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2). Father appealed, arguing that the district court impermissibly terminated his parental rights based on his incarceration and that the Department failed to make a meaningful effort at reunifying him with his child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly found that the length of Father’s incarceration rendered him incapable of taking responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and (2) the district court was not required to address the extent of the Department’s reunification efforts in its finding that Father is unfit. View "In re Daphne" on Justia Law

After a trial, the district court terminated the parental rights to Mother, the mother of Aiden and Benjamin, and Father, the father of Carl, Daryl, and Benjamin. On appeal, Father argued that the district court erred in finding him unfit because the Department of Health and Human Services failed to comply with its statutory rehabilitation and reunification responsibilities. Mother, in turn, argued that the court erred in weighing the evidence before it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, as to each child, the court found at least one ground of parental unfitness supported by clear and convincing evidence and that there was ample evidence to support the court’s finding that termination of each parent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Aiden" on Justia Law

The two children at issue in this case lived with their grandmother both before and after their mother died. The grandmother filed petitions seeking guardianship of the children alleging that she was a de facto guardian of the children and that the children’s father had demonstrated a lack of consistent participation with the children. After receiving notice of the guardianship petitions, the father moved the children from their home in Maine to live with him in Florida. The Maine probate court subsequently appointed the grandmother the limited permanent guardian of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment to the extent that it appointed the grandmother as the children’s limited guardian, holding that the probate court did not err in finding that the grandmother was entitled be named the children’s guardian based on her status as the children’s de facto guardian, the father’s lack of consistent participation, and the temporarily in tolerable living situation created by the father. Remanded to the probate court with instructions to specify which duties and powers are granted to the limited guardian and which parental rights and responsibilities are retained by the father. View "In re Guardianship of Abigail Doe" on Justia Law

Doug Lothrop and Julie Lothrop were divorced in 2008. In 2014, Doug filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 951-A(12), requesting termination or reduction of his spousal support obligation due to Julie’s cohabitation with another person. Section 951-A(12) was amended in 2013 to state that an order awarding spousal support is subject to modification where it can be shown that the payee and another person have been cohabiting for a certain period. The district court denied Doug’s motion to modify, concluding that the award was nonmodifiable because section 951-A(12) does not apply retroactively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that section 951-A(12) does not apply retroactively. View "Lothrop v. Lothrop" on Justia Law

The district court appointed a referee to recommend a judgment in the divorce matter between John Simpson and Elena Wechsler. The referee filed a report making recommendations regarding custody issues and the division of marital property. The district court adopted the report as modified as a final divorce judgment. Simpson appealed from aspects of the divorce judgment affecting parental rights and responsibilities and the division of the marital estate. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the referee’s recommendation concerning the primary residence for the parties’ minor children and the division of the martial estate, which the district court adopted in its final divorce judgment, arose from due consideration of statutory factors and was not affected by any abuse of discretion or error. View "Wechsler v. Simpson" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services petitioned for termination of Parents’ parental rights to their two minor children. After a hearing, the district court terminated both parents’ parental rights to the children. Shortly after the trial and one day after the entry of judgment, the trial judge resigned. The amended judgment on appeal was entered by a different judge. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Parents’ due process rights were not violated because the entry of the initial termination order was drafted by an assistant attorney general; (2) there was no error in the successor judge’s decision to enter an amended judgment instead of holding a new trial; and (3) the district court did not err in its determination that the termination of parental rights, rather than a permanency guardianship with the grandparents, was in the best interests of the children. View "In re C.P." on Justia Law

Kevin and Lisa Dube divorced pursuant to a final divorce judgment granting Lisa and Kevin shared parental rights and responsibilities of the parties’ daughter. Kevin appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment as to the spousal and child support awards and otherwise affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in setting Kevin’s rights of contact with his daughter; but (2) erred in finding that Kevin earns $175,000 per year, a finding underpinning both the spousal and the child support awards. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Dube v. Dube" on Justia Law