Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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