Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2009, Mother and Father were divorced pursuant to a judgment of divorce that awarded Mother primary residence of the couple’s children and provided Father eight weeks of visitation with the children per year. In 2013, the district court modified the divorce judgment to provide for shared residence of the children. In 2014, Father again filed a motion to modify the divorce judgment and a motion for contempt. Thereafter, Mother requested a change of venue, which the district court granted. The court subsequently modified the divorce judgment by awarding Mother primary residence of the children and reducing Father’s visitation time. In addition, the court found Mother was in contempt for her refusal to comply with the terms of the 2013 order and granted Father’s request for attorney fees. The court declined to impose further sanctions on Mother. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) transferring this matter to a court where additional judicial resources were available; (2) modifying the divorce judgment; and (3) awarding attorney fees as a remedial sanction for Mother’s contempt and declining to impose additional sanctions. View "Hamlin v. Cavagnaro" on Justia Law

In 2014, Husband and Wife were divorced pursuant to a divorce judgment that incorporated the terms of a mutual agreement between the properties. In 2015, Wife filed a motion to enforce a provision of the judgment requiring the sale of certain real property in a commercially reasonable manner. At the conclusion of a hearing, the district court granted Wife’s motion to enforce. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Husband’s motion for a continuance; (2) the court properly granted a motion for an expedited hearing; and (3) sufficient evidence in the record supported the court’s finding that the sale of the real property was commercially reasonable. View "Hero v. Macomber" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were the parents of a child born in 2012. In 2014, Father brought this action seeking a determination of their parental rights and responsibilities. After a hearing, the district court ordered Father to pay weekly child support in the amount of $173. Thereafter, Father filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law requesting that the court issue findings and conclusions on the amount of both parties’ income and the amount of childcare expenses used to calculate his child support obligation. The court denied Father’s motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment addressing child support, holding that the district court erred in denying Father’s motion because the judgment did not include findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the applicable elements of the child support calculation. Remanded. View "Dumas v. Milotte" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the third petition brought by the Department of Health and Human Services to terminate the parental rights of Parents to their two sons. The court denied two prior petitions. After a hearing on the third petition, the court terminated Parents’ parental rights, finding that Parents were unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that the circumstances were unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The court also determined that termination was in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its determination that termination was in each child’s best interest. View "In re G.T." on Justia Law

In 2014, the trial court terminated Father’s rights to his child after finding all four grounds of parental unfitness. Father moved for a new trial and to set aside the termination judgment. The trial court denied the motions. Father appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding of one ground of parental unfitness and arguing that the court and all persons and entities involved in his case demonstrated prejudice against him based on his national origin and immigration status. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings of parental unfitness on the ground of Father’s unwillingness or inability to protect the child from jeopardy; and (2) the record was devoid of any prejudice argued by Petitioner. View "In re M.E." on Justia Law

After Father threatened his ex-girlfriend with sharpened knives and included his seven-year old child in the assault, the Department of Health and Human Services petitioned the district court for a child protection order. The court entered a jeopardy order by agreement. Thereafter, the Department filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights, alleging that Father’s involvement of the child in the assault constituted “heinous and abhorrent conduct” creating a presumption of parental unfitness. After a hearing, the court terminated Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court’s finding that Father’s conduct was “heinous and abhorrent” was sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Father was unfit to parent his child. View "In re J.V." on Justia Law

Mother and Father met in Guatemala, and their child was born there. When the child was approximately fifteen months old, Father filed a complaint in Maine to establish parental rights and responsibilities. Mother was not served in Maine and did not consent to jurisdiction in Maine, and neither Mother nor the child ever resided in Maine. Mother moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Maine lacked long-arm jurisdiction over her. The district court granted Mother's motion to dismiss, determine that Maine lacked jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that the UCCJEA governed its determination of jurisdiction in this matter. View "Seekings v. Hamm" on Justia Law

Grandmother filed a petition requesting that she be appointed the temporary guardian of Child. The probate court granted a temporary limited guardianship, concluding that Mother was temporarily unfit to parent. Grandmother subsequently petitioned for permanent guardianship of Child on grounds of an intolerable living situation. The probate court denied the petition, concluding that Mother was currently fit to parent Child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the probate court applied the correct legal test according to the correct standard of proof in evaluating with Mother was a fit parent and in determining whether the award of guardianship was in the best interest of Child. View "In re Guardianship of Gionest" on Justia Law

In 2009, Mother and Father were divorced pursuant to a stipulated judgment that awarded Mother primary residence of the parties’ minor children. Father later moved to modify the divorce judgment, alleging that Mother was cohabiting with a man (Stepfather) that exposed the children to a person who abused alcohol. In 2014, the court granted Husband the right to provide the children’s primary residence and prohibited Mother from allowing any unsupervised contact between the children and Stepfather. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings were sufficient to support the court’s determination that the children’s best interests would be served by changing their primary residence from Mother’s home to Father’s. View "Aranovitch v. Versel" on Justia Law

Following a hearing on a petition filed by the Department of Health and Human Services to terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights to their son, the district court found three grounds of unfitness as to Mother, that Father was unwilling and unable to protect his son from jeopardy, and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time that was reasonably calculated to meet the son’s needs. The court also found that termination was in the son’s best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s finding that they were not fit to parent their son, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the son’s best interest. View "In re B.P." on Justia Law