Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2006, Patricia Voter and Dexter Voter divorced. The divorce judgment required Dexter to pay Patricia general spousal support in a certain amount per month until he retired, when the amount of his spousal support obligation would become one-half of his “retirement earnings.” When Dexter retired in 2013, he filed a post-judgment motion to modify the amount of support, alleging a change of circumstances because he was no longer employed. The court issued a written order clarifying the judgment by defining “retirement earnings” as used in the judgment. After a hearing, the court denied the motion to modify. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err when it clarified the spousal support provisions of its own judgment; and (2) the court’s decision to deny Dexter’s motion to modify was not an abuse of discretion. View "Voter v. Voter" on Justia Law

Father killed Mother in their oldest son’s immediate presence. The probate court terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(B)(2)(a). The court presumed jeopardy against Father with respect to the oldest son based on its finding that Father acted in callous disregard for his son’s emotional well-being and had failed to protect his son from “a profound emotional injury” in a manner that was heinous and abhorrent to society. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the presumption of jeopardy does not apply only when a parent inflicts physical harm upon a child and that the presumption was applicable in this case. View "In re J.H." on Justia Law

Lawrence Ireland and Brooke Tardiff were divorced by a divorce judgment entered by the district court. The district court later found Ireland in contempt for his failure to make timely payment to Tardiff of the judgment amount. Ireland moved to reconsider and moved for further findings regarding his finances and ability to make the payments as ordered. The court denied the motion and found that Ireland was capable of meeting the payments as outlined in the contempt order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly found that Ireland had the ability to comply with the court order, at least in part, and failed or refused to comply with that order; and (2) thus did not abuse its discretion in finding Ireland in contempt. View "Ireland v. Tardiff" on Justia Law

Cynthia Stacey-Sotiriou and Eve Sotiriou were the legal parents of a child born in 2006. In 2008, Cynthia and Eve jointly adopted the child. The parties’ relationship ended soon thereafter. In 2009, Cynthia filed a petition for the determination of parental rights and responsibilities. Eve then moved to Greece with the three-year-old child, indicating that she would not return with the child unless Cynthia agreed to allowing Eve to have primary residence. The district court entered a judgment establishing shared parental rights and responsibilities. Cynthia subsequently filed a motion to modify the judgment as well as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), alleging that she had agreed to the judgment under duress. The district court granted both motions and awarded Cynthia primary residence of the child and Eve unsupervised contact with the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its award of rights of contact, including unsupervised contact, to Eve. View "Stacey-Sotiriou v. Sotiriou" on Justia Law

In 2013, the district court entered a judgment granting a divorce to Jeff Emerson and Patricia Bonner. Bonner subsequently filed motions for post-judgment relief pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 120 seeking enforcement of the divorce judgment. Emerson filed his own post-judgment motion pursuant to Rule 120 seeking enforcement. The district court employed the “applicable body of law relating to a [Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion]” and, sua sponte, amended the judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment because the court amended the judgment without the authority to do so. Remanded for reconsideration. View "Bonner v. Emerson" on Justia Law

Mother, who was from Italy, married Father, and the parties had one child. Father later filed for divorce. The district court entered a divorce judgment finding that, while the parties were both in Maine, it was in the child’s best interest to remain in the primary custodial care of Mother. The court also ordered that, if Mother relocated to Italy, primary residence would shift to Father so the child could remain in Maine. The court also divided the marital real estate, financial assets and debts. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that the district court (1) did not limit Mother’s constitutional right to travel or deprive Mother of her liberty without due process when balancing the parents’ and the child’s rights and interests in reaching its judgment; (2) did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the evidentiary record to allow Mother to present evidence of the parties’ changed residential circumstances and work prospects; and (3) erred in failing to allocate Father’s deferred compensation account to one party or the other after determining it had no marital value. View "Light v. D'Amato" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court issued a protection from abuse order against Father, finding that he had sexually abused his five-year-old daughter, ordering that he have no contact with her, and temporarily awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of statements that the victim made to a social worker during therapy identifying Father as her abuser; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of statements the victim made during a forensic interview; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding of abuse. View "Walton v. Ireland" on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his child on the grounds that Father was unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child in a time frame calculated to meet the child’s needs and that the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. Father’s counsel subsequently filed an appellate brief containing only a procedural history and statement of facts, accompanied by a motion for enlargement of time to allow Father personally to file a supplemental brief. The Supreme Court granted the motion, but Father did not file a supplemental brief by the deadline provided. The Court affirmed, holding (1) the process utilized by Father’s counsel in this appeal was proper; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re M.C." on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced in 2010. In the divorce judgment, the district court awarded sole parental rights and responsibilities along with primary residential care of the parties’ son to Mother and granted Father visitation rights. Father filed several post-judgment motions related to his contact with his son. In 2013, the district court denied Father increased contact with his son, finding, among other things, that Father had not successfully completed the Violence No More program. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that some of the district court’s findings were not supported by competent evidence, and the errors were not harmless. Remanded. View "Remick v. Martin" on Justia Law

After Mother relocated to North Carolina, Mother and Father, who were divorced, litigated the issue of whether their child’s primary physical residence would be in Maine or North Carolina. The district court ordered that the child was to live primarily in Maine with Father and that Mother pay child support to Father. The parties then began disputing travel costs. In 2011, the court amended the judgment to provide that the child’s travel expenses “shall be reflected as a 50% credit against [Mother’s] child support obligation.” In 2013, Mother filed a motion “to enforce and clarify” the judgment, requesting that the court amend the 2011 order so as to give her credit against her child support obligation based on the amount of her own travel expenses. The court denied the motion, finding it to be “frivolous,” and awarded Father attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the motion was frivolous and imposing sanctions. View "Tuell v. Nicholson" on Justia Law