Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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