Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2014, Hailey’s mother petitioned the Cumberland County Probate Court for Hailey’s paternal grandparents to be appointed as guardians so that Hailey could attend school in Freeport. She withdrew the petition weeks later, stating that the arrangement was “for an educational purpose that [was] no longer needed.” .Weeks later, the grandparents petitioned to have themselves appointed as guardians of the child, stating that the child needed a safe and supportive environment and had threatened to run away from her mother’s house. The child began to live with her grandparents in January 2015. The child’s father consented to the guardianship, but her mother did not. The court heard testimony from the child, then 15 years old; her parents; and a clinician who had provided treatment services to the child and her mother, and entered a judgment finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother had created a living situation that was at least temporarily intolerable for the child and that a guardianship with the grandparents was in the child’s best interest; mother had shown an inability to meet the child’s needs that threatened the child. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, rejecting challenges to the court’s findings and to the award of a full, rather than limited, guardianship, with no arrangement for transition back to mother’s home. View "Guardianship of Hailey M." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of her child, filed a complaint for protection from abuse against Defendant, a neighbor, on behalf of Defendant’s child. After a hearing, the district court entered a protection order, finding that Defendant’s child presented a firearm-related credible threat to the safety of Plaintiff’s child. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court remanded the case for entry of a second amended order that does not include the credible threat finding, holding that the district court’s finding that Defendant’s child poses a firearm-related credible threat to the safety of Plaintiff’s child was in error. View "Seger v. Nason" on Justia Law

Mother, who had been awarded sole parental rights and the right to provide Child’s primary residence, petitioned to adopt Child and to terminate the parental rights of Father. After a final hearing, the probate court denied Mother’s petitions. Although the court found that Father had abandoned Child, it concluded that Mother had not proved that it was in Child’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights because Mother, who was receiving state benefits, had insufficient funds to provide for Child, and Child would benefit from support payments from Father. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the probate court erred in considering the State’s financial interest as a factor in its determination of Child’s best interest. View "In re Adoption of Liam O." on Justia Law

In 2015, Jennifer Kilton filed a complaint for divorce from Darin Kilton. The trial court held an uncontested final hearing, which Darin did not attend. The court subsequently granted the parties’ divorce, adopting the order drafted by Jennifer’s party. Darin did not file any post-judgment motions. Darin timely filed this appeal but initiated no effort to create an alternative record of the unrecorded final hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis to grant relief on appeal because the trial court was not given the opportunity to address the concerns Darin raised for the first time on appeal and because there was no record of the evidence presented to the trial court. View "Kilton v. Kilton" on Justia Law

Benjamin Yap filed a complaint for protection from abuse against Alyssa Vinton on behalf of himself and the parties’ child. A temporary protection was granted awarding Yap temporary sole parental rights and responsibilities. Yap subsequently filed a complaint for a determination of parental rights and responsibilities. The court issued a protection from abuse order that shared parental rights and responsibilities and awarded Yap primary residence of the child. After a hearing for a determination of parental rights and responsibilities, Vinton submitted a proposed order for the court’s consideration. The court adopted, in its entirety and with one change, Vinton’s proposed parental rights order and findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yap appealed, contending that the judge erred by adopting the language of Vinton’s proposed order verbatim and by not exercising independent judgment. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the judgment, holding that the trial court’s findings were not the result of careful judicial deliberation and the exercise of independent judgment. View "Yap v. Vinton" on Justia Law

Benjamin Yap filed a complaint for protection from abuse against Alyssa Vinton on behalf of himself and the parties’ child. A temporary protection was granted awarding Yap temporary sole parental rights and responsibilities. Yap subsequently filed a complaint for a determination of parental rights and responsibilities. The court issued a protection from abuse order that shared parental rights and responsibilities and awarded Yap primary residence of the child. After a hearing for a determination of parental rights and responsibilities, Vinton submitted a proposed order for the court’s consideration. The court adopted, in its entirety and with one change, Vinton’s proposed parental rights order and findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yap appealed, contending that the judge erred by adopting the language of Vinton’s proposed order verbatim and by not exercising independent judgment. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the judgment, holding that the trial court’s findings were not the result of careful judicial deliberation and the exercise of independent judgment. View "Yap v. Vinton" on Justia Law

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