Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following a hearing on a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her daughter, the district court entered a judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights, finding that Mother was unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The court subsequently denied Mother’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) based on her allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed after setting forth the process a parent and courts must follow when a parent claims ineffective assistance in a motion for relief from judgment, holding that the district court did not deny Mother’s due process rights when it declined to allow her to call additional witnesses at the Rule 60(b)(6) hearing or abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion for relief from judgment. View "In re M.P." on Justia Law

In 2013, the district granted the parties in this case a divorce. The judgment provided that the parties were to share many parental rights and responsibilities and awarded primary residence of one child to Father and the other two children to Mother. The parties subsequently filed cross-motions to modify. The court struck the grant of the divorce itself and redesignated the remaining aspects of its previous orders as interim orders. After a final hearing, the district court issued a judgment awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities to Mother for one year and ordered that Father pay Mother spousal support. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court gave proper deference and weight to prior orders issued in the case; (2) the court did not err in awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities to Mother; (3) the court properly assigned responsibility to a counselor for establishing a schedule of Father’s rights of contact with the children; (4) the court’s parental rights determination did not violate the children’s constitutional rights to procedural due process; (5) the court’s award of spousal support was not an abuse of discretion; and (6) the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Mother. View "Pearson v. Wendell" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife were divorced in 2011 by a judgment of the district court that incorporated a settlement agreement. Based on that agreement, Husband was ordered to pay Wife spousal support In 2012, the court approved another agreed-upon order incorporating a second settlement agreement by the parties that reduced Husband’s spousal support obligation. In 2013, Husband filed a second motion to modify seeking to reduce or terminate his spousal support obligation. The court granted Husband’s motion in part by adjusting Husband’s spousal support award to accommodate for loss in property value of the marital home but otherwise declining to adjust the award. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) determining that the 2012 order, rather than the original divorce judgment, was the most recent final order; (2) finding no change in the parties financial circumstances except for the loss of the value in the house; and (3) declining to consider Wife’s earning capacity and related factors when it modified the support award. View "Gomberg v. Gomberg" on Justia Law

In 2012, Mother filed a motion to modify a parental rights and responsibilities order requesting recalculation of child support. By agreement, the district court reduced Mother’s child support obligation to $100 per week. Subsequently, following a hearing, the court issued an order that left in place Mother’s $100 weekly child support obligation. In 2015, Mother filed a notice of appeal, contending that the court miscalculated the child support due. The Supreme Court dismissed as untimely because it was not filed within twenty-one days after the docketing of the court’s additional findings. View "Flores v. Otis" on Justia Law

Child was born to Mother while Mother was married to Father. Father was not Child’s biological father. Mother and Father subsequently divorced. Father later filed a motion for determination of de facto parent status in both a child protection case and a post-judgment motion in the divorce action. The district court consolidated the motions for hearing and determined that C.L. was not a de facto parent for purposes of the child protection proceeding, nor was he a de facto parent for purposes of the family matter. Father appealed the district court’s judgment on both motions. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) dismissed the appeal from the child protection order because the appeal was interlocutory; and (2) affirmed the judgment in the family matter, as Father failed to establish the first element of de facto parenthood. View "C.L. v. L.L." on Justia Law

Father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his two children after the district court found, by clear and convincing evidence, all four statutory grounds of parental unfitness and that termination was in the children’s best interests so that they may be adopted. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it determined that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests without considering a potential permanency planning option not presented to the court; and (2) properly engaged in the statutorily required best interest analysis. View "In re J.I." on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court terminated the parental rights of Father to his minor child. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the judgment as to termination of Father’s parental rights, holding that the court rationally could have found that Father was unable to protect his child from jeopardy or take responsibility for his child within a reasonable time frame, that Father did not make a good faith effort to reunify, and that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest; and (2) dismissed the appeal in all other respects, holding that the denial of Father’s placement request was not subject to appellate review. View "In re L.D." on Justia Law

Lawrence Tardiff and Katherine Sullivan were divorced pursuant to a divorce judgment after the parties reached a settlement agreement. The judgment provided that the primary residence of the parties’ minor child would be with Sullivan and that Tardiff would pay weekly child support. Sullivan later filed a motion for contempt alleging that Tardiff had not complied with the divorce judgment by failing to pay his share of the child’s daycare expenses, the property settlement, and attorney fees. Tardiff subsequently filed a motion to modify the visitation schedule and child support award. The district court modified the child support provisions by increasing Tardiff’s weekly child support payment instead of ordering the reduction he had requested. The court also granted Sullivan’s motion for contempt and imposed remedial sanctions. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in modifying Tardiff’s child support payments; and (2) the court did not err by imposing coercive imprisonment as a sanction for Tardiff’s contempt. View "Sullivan v. Tardiff" on Justia Law

David Sullivan and Zoe Rockwood were divorced after a contested hearing. Sullivan later filed a motions to modify and enforce the divorce judgment. In his motion to modify, Sullivan argued that his spousal support obligation should be reduced because there had been a substantial change int he parties’ financial circumstances. In his motion to enforce, Sullivan alleged that Rockwood had not used the proceeds from Sullivan’s retirement account to pay debts as the divorce decree required. The district court denied both motions after a hearing. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the portion of the district court’s judgment denying Sullivan’s motion to enforce, holding that the district court was compelled to grant Sullivan’s motion to enforce because the undisputed evidence established that Rockwood failed to comply with unambiguous terms of the judgment; and (2) affirmed in all other respects, holding that district court did not err when it denied Sullivan’s request to call Rockwood’s former boyfriend as a witness and did not abuse its discretion when it declined to modify Sullivan’s spousal support obligation. View "Sullivan v. Rockwood" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were the parents of a minor child. In 2004, the district court entered a parental rights and responsibilities order granting the parties shared parental rights and responsibilities and shared primary residence. In 2007, the court amended the order so that the child would reside primarily with Mother and would stay with Father on weekends. In 2013, Mother moved to modify the 2007 order seeking sole parental rights and responsibilities, primary residence of the child, and a requirement that Father’s contact with the child be supervised. The court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err when it implicitly found a substantial change in circumstances and expressly concluded that it was in the child’s best interest to grant Mother sole parental rights and responsibilities and to require that Father’s contact with the child be supervised. View "Pearson v. Ellis-Gross" on Justia Law