Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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