Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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