Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The district court concluded that Mother placed her child in circumstances of jeopardy, finding that Mother’s actions caused at least a threat of serious harm to the child and that the child had been deprived of necessary health care. As part of the child protection order it issued granting custody to the Department of Health and Human Services, the court ordered the Department to approve vaccinations for the child over Mother’s objections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of jeopardy; and (2) the district court did not err by ordering the Department to approve all vaccinations for the child that are deemed essential by a pediatrician. View "In re Z.S." on Justia Law

Three-year-old N.O. handled her parents’ loaded firearm and accidentally shot herself while her older siblings, P.O. and J.O., were present in the home. Mother was at work and Father was doing other things in the home at the time of the accident. After the district court entered a jeopardy order, the Department petitioned for termination of the parents’ parental rights. After a hearing, the district court entered its judgment terminating each parent’s parental rights, finding that termination was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its findings of unfitness as to both Mother and Father and in terminating their parental rights. View "In re P.O." on Justia Law

Pamela Jensen filed for divorce from Larry Jensen after almost thirty-five years of marriage. After attending mediation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that purported to distribute all of the marital and nonmarital property and debts. Pamela subsequently filed a motion to set aside the mediated agreement, arguing that the mediated agreement and proposed divorce judgment were “manifestly unjust.” The family law magistrate denied Pamela’s motion and, that same day, signed the proposed divorce judgment. The district court adopted the magistrate’s decision and the divorce judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that, where Pamela contested the terms of the agreement before the entry of a final judgment and objected to the proposed divorce judgment, and where this matter did not involve minor children or child support, the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to enter a final divorce judgment. Rather, once the matter became contested, it should have been referred to a district court judge for a ruling on Pamela’s motion. Remanded. View "Jensen v. Jensen" on Justia Law

Husband filed a divorce action in Maine. At the time, there was an action for child custody and child and spousal support pending in the Virginia courts that was filed by Wife. Wife moved to dismiss Husband’s action. The Maine district court stayed the divorce proceedings and left to be determined whether the action would be dismissed because a party filed a divorce action in Virginia or whether the action would remain pending because neither party filed in Virginia or the Virginia court declined jurisdiction. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Father’s appeal, concluding that this appeal was interlocutory and not subject to any exception to the final judgment rule. View "Willey v. Willey" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not improperly terminate Father’s parental rights solely because he had been diagnosed as having borderline personality disorder and thus did not violate Father’s equal protection rights; (2) the district court provided Father with the due process required in the context of a termination of parental rights by providing him with a reasonable period of time for reunification and not improperly placing a burden of proof upon Father; and (3) there was clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s finding of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in the child’s best interest. View "In re I.S." on Justia Law

Christine Violette filed a complaint for divorce from Randy Violette. The district court entered a divorce judgment granting the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable marital differences. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment that mandated specific disciplinary measures and affirmed in all other respects, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err in calculating Randy’s income and by relying on that finding in its child support and spousal support awards; (2) did not abuse its discretion in its spousal support award; (3) did not clearly err in finding that two assets - a piece of real estate and a business - were wholly nonmarital; but (4) abused its discretion when it ordered the parties to discipline their children in a specific and inflexible fashion upon the occurrence of particular events with no discretion left to the parents. View "Violette v. Violette" on Justia Law

Christine Violette filed a complaint for divorce from Randy Violette. The district court entered a divorce judgment granting the parties a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable marital differences. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment that mandated specific disciplinary measures and affirmed in all other respects, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err in calculating Randy’s income and by relying on that finding in its child support and spousal support awards; (2) did not abuse its discretion in its spousal support award; (3) did not clearly err in finding that two assets - a piece of real estate and a business - were wholly nonmarital; but (4) abused its discretion when it ordered the parties to discipline their children in a specific and inflexible fashion upon the occurrence of particular events with no discretion left to the parents. View "Violette v. Violette" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition for child protection regarding L.T. alleging that Father created jeopardy through neglect, emotional abuse, and physical abuse. The Father and the Department agreed to the entry of a jeopardy order as to Father. Father was later incarcerated, during which time the Department petitioned to terminate Father’s rights to the child based largely on the factual allegations included in the jeopardy order. After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Father’s rights to the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had sufficient evidence before it to find, by clear and convincing evidence, the statutory grounds for parental termination; and (2) Father’s remaining allegations of error were without merit. View "In re L.T." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother to her child, I.R. After a hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to I.R., finding that Mother was unable or unwilling to protect the child from jeopardy, was unable or unwilling to take responsibility for the child within a reasonable time, and failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child, and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, of parental unfitness; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that termination was in the best interest of the child. View "In re I.R." on Justia Law

In 2012, Jennifer Young filed a complaint for divorce from Michael Young. After a hearing, the district court entered a divorce judgment that granted Jennifer sole parental rights and responsibilities for the children, awarded Jennifer child support arrearages, divided the martial property, set aside Michael’s retirement account to Jennifer in lieu of spousal support, and ordered Michael to pay Jennifer’s attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) vacated the judgment as to (i) the retirement account because the court failed adequately to explain this aspect of the property division, (ii) the distribution of all tangible marital personal property because of several discrete errors affecting the court’s analysis, and (iii) attorney fees; (2) affirmed the child support arrearage as corrected; and (3) affirmed in all other respects. View "Young v. Young" on Justia Law