Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, Molly Jandreau filed a complaint for divorce from Daniel LaChance. The district court ordered LaChance to pay Jandreau $230 weekly in child support and divided the marital assets and liabilities. Jandreau appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by denying her requests for spousal support and attorney fees. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with Jandreau and vacated the portion of the judgment denying spousal support and attorney fees, holding that Jandreau was entitled to some amount of spousal support and that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to deny Jandreau’s request for attorney fees. View "Jandreau v. LaChance" on Justia Law

John and Judith Monahan were married in 1976. In 2011, John filed a complaint for divorce. After a final divorce hearing held in 2014, the district court made several factual findings. The court then entered an initial divorce judgment awarding Judith monthly spousal support. The judgment provided that the spousal support award was non-modifiable. John moved to amend the judgment seeking modifiable spousal support so that the award would conform with the district court’s preliminary memorandum of decision, which did not state that spousal support may not be modified. In an amended divorce judgment, the court declined to make the spousal support modifiable. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment as amended, holding (1) the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in regard to the marital property division; but (2) the divorce judgment must be amended to remove the language prohibiting modification of spousal support, as, pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 951-A(4) as amended, the court could not direct that spousal support “may not be modified.” View "Monahan v. Monahan" on Justia Law

In 2012, the district court entered an order protecting Jana Gehrke, Chad Gehrke’s ex-wife, and the parties’ sons. Thereafter, the order was twice modified, further constraining Chad’s contact with the children. In 2013, Jana filed her third motion to modify the protection order. After a hearing, the court found that Chad had committed abuse and entered an amended order prohibiting Chad from having any contact with Jana or the children. In 2014, Jana moved to extend the order of protection from abuse for two more years. The court entered a judgment extending the order of protection from abuse due to Chad’s pattern of violence, threats, suicide threats, and failure to comply with the increasingly restrictive court orders. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in relying on evidence of abuse that predated the initial protection from abuse order and determining that the extended order was necessary to protect Jana and the children; and (2) the extended protection order did not violate Defendant’s constitutionally protected parental rights. View "Gehrke v. Gehrke" on Justia Law

In 2014, Mother filed a complaint seeking a protection order against Father for herself and their two children. After a hearing, the district court found that Father had abused Mother and issued a protection order for the benefit of Mother and the children and granted Mother temporary custody. Father appealed, arguing that the court erred by denying his motion to continue the hearing. Father orally made the motion at the hearing after the attorney he purportedly retained did not appear. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion for a continuance. View "Daud v. Abdullahi" on Justia Law

Mother’s first two children were removed from her care due to neglect. Mother’s third child lived with his paternal grandmother. Mother’s parental rights to her fourth child were terminated when the child was twelve months old. After Mother gave birth to her fifth child, R.M., the district court ordered that her parental rights to R.M. be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) determined by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect R.M. from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in R.M.’s best interest. View "In re R.M." on Justia Law

Six days after premature twins were born, the Department of Health and Human Services petitioned for a child protection order, alleging that the twins were in circumstances of immediate risk of serious harm based on Mother’s infliction of fatal injuries to the parents’ one-year-old adopted son and Father’s infliction of serious bruising to the son two days before his death. The district court concluded that the twins would be in circumstances of jeopardy to their health and welfare if returned to the custody of their parents and found aggravated factors as to both Mother and Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did err when it found aggravating factors as to Father or when it admitted an autopsy report of the parents’ son. View "In re E.A." on Justia Law

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