Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her minor child, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that competent record evidence supported the court’s findings of parental unfitness and that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re C.A." on Justia Law

The district court entered a divorce judgment awarding Wife spousal support and child support and declined to award her retroactive child support or attorney fees. Wife appealed, raising several allegations of error. After noting that this case presented particular challenges to the court in seeking to reach a fair and equitable result, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding spousal support, imputing income to Wife, declining to award Wife retroactive child support, or leaving each party responsible for his or her own attorney fees. View "Buck v. Buck" on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his two children. Father appealed, arguing that the court’s denial of his motion to continue improperly deprived him of his right to counsel pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4005(2) because “he was not provided adequate time to speak and confer with his attorney prior to the hearing.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion to continue; and (2) competent evidence in the record supported the court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, failure to make a good faith effort to reunify with the children, and that termination was in the best interests of the children. View "In re J.B." on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his three children after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father was unfit and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not fail to critically assess the evidence before it, and there was clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding of at least one ground of parental unfitness; and (2) there was ample evidence in the record that termination of Father’s rights was in the children’s best interest. View "In re D.C." on Justia Law

After a termination hearing at which Father failed to appear, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his child. Father appealed the termination order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court correctly found that at least one ground of parental unfitness was proved by clear and convincing evidence; (2) ample evidence in the record supported the conclusion that termination of Father’s rights was in the child’s best interest; and (3) because Father received advance notice of the hearing and chose not to appear, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Father’s attorney’s motion to continue the termination hearing until Father could attend. View "In re T.C." on Justia Law

In 2012, the district court issued a judgment establishing shared parental rights and responsibilities and shared primary physical residence of the child of Flint Hutchinson and Christina Bruyere. One year later, Hutchinson filed a motion to modify and a motion for contempt, asserting that Bruyere violated the judgment. The court granted Hutchinson’s motions in part and denied them in part. Hutchinson appealed, arguing that the record did not support the court’s decision on his motions and that his attorney did not adequately represent him at the motion hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of Hutchinson’s arguments because Hutchinson failed to comply with the basic requirements applicable to the submission of a proper record and index. View "Hutchinson v. Bruyere" on Justia Law

In 2011, Grandparents filed a petition to establish visitation rights with their grandson. The district court entered an order setting out a visitation schedule. In 2014, Grandparents filed a motion to modify the grandparent visitation order after Mother and Father moved to Kentucky. Mother opposed the motion to modify, and all parties requested attorney fees. The district court dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction and ordered Grandparents to pay Mother’s reasonable attorney fees and costs. Grandparents appealed, arguing that the court erred in awarding attorney fees without providing them “an opportunity for hearing.” The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded because the record did not show that the parties were afforded the statutorily required opportunity to be heard on the issue of attorney fees. View "True v. Harmon" on Justia Law

Christopher MacMahon and Elizabeth Tinkham, who had two daughters together, divorced in 2009. McMahon was granted primary physical residence of the girls, but no child support was awarded to either party. In 2012, the district court entered a modified judgment of parental rights and responsibilities requiring Tinkham to pay child support to MacMahon. MacMahon later filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Tinkham failed to pay the ordered child support. The court ultimately denied the motion for contempt, determining that MacMahon had not met his burden of proving that Tinkham had the present ability to pay child support and was wilfully avoiding her obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence in the record was sufficient to support the court’s determination that MacMahon had not proved contempt by clear and convincing evidence. View "MacMahon v. Tinkham" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the biological parents of a daughter born in 2010. The district court awarded primary residence of the child to Mother, who intended to move to Florida with the child. Father appealed, contending, inter alia, that the district court erred by not considering the statutory protections afforded to him pursuant to the Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MMUMA) when it determined custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the custody award did not run afoul of the statutory protections identified in MMUMA because the court’s factual findings did not rely on Father’s legal marijuana use but on his distraction and impairment while parenting; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in granting primary residence to Mother and allowing her to relocate to Florida. View "Daggett v. Sternick" on Justia Law

In 2012, Maria Viola filed for divorce from Gordon Viola. The district court entered a divorce judgment ordering Gordon to pay spousal support and attorney fees to Maria. The court also divided the marital assets and debts. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the judgment regarding attorney fees, holding that the award was not justified by the record; and (2) affirmed the judgment in all other respects, holding that the divorce court did not err in its award of spousal support or in its division of marital property. Remanded for reconsideration and clarification of the judgment as it related to Gordon’s obligation to pay all or some of the attorney fees incurred by Maria. View "Viola v. Viola" on Justia Law