Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

When Mother and Father divorced, primary custody of M.M. was awarded to Mother. Later, the district court modified the judgment by awarding sole parental rights to Father. Petitioners - Mother’s investigator and three private citizens with no natural or legal relationship to M.M. - subsequently filed a petition for a child protection order seeking to have the district court find that M.M. required protection because of circumstances of jeopardy created by Father. The court dismissed the petition, finding that some of the claims asserted were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, other claims failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and Petitioners lacked standing. The Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner had standing to bring the petition for a child protection order and otherwise affirmed the judgment.View "In re M.M." on Justia Law

Mother and Father’s child was placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services after the district court found the child had severe failure to thrive, needed consistent feeding by mouth and feeding tube, and that the parents had not followed medical advice for treating the child’s condition. After a jeopardy hearing, the district court found that jeopardy existed as to both Mother and Father and ordered that the child remain in the Department’s custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to establish that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy while in the parents’ care, requiring the child’s removal from her parents’ home in order to receive the medical care and treatment she required. View "In re M.E." on Justia Law

When Mother’s child was one year old, the district court found that Mother had placed her child in circumstances of jeopardy. Subsequently, after an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights, finding Mother unfit on the ground that she was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that termination of Mother’s rights was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court did err or abuse its discretion by imposing in the dispositional portion of the jeopardy order certain conditions that Mother was required to meet before the court would consider her to have alleviated the circumstances that led to the jeopardy finding. View "In re B.C." on Justia Law

In 2011, the district court entered a divorce judgment that ordered Defendant to make certain payments to Plaintiff. Defendant made timely payments until 2012. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for contempt against Defendant. The court district found Defendant delinquent in making payments and held him in contempt. The court committed Defendant to ninety days in jail, suspended, subject to Defendant making each payment specified in the divorce judgment for three years. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s finding of contempt to the extent the finding was based on Defendant’s past failure to comply with the divorce judgment; but (2) vacated the court’s imposition of coercive imprisonment as a remedial sanction for Defendant’s prospective noncompliance. Remanded.View "Murphy v. Bartlett" on Justia Law

N.B. was the maternal grandmother of L.R. and the legal guardian of L.R.’s mother, who suffered from mental illness and had borderline intellectual functioning. L.R. was placed in foster care when she was two months old, and jeopardy orders were subsequently entered against both of L.R.’s parents. N.B. filed a motion requesting that L.R. be placed with her. The district court denied N.B.’s motion for kinship placement, concluding that it was not in L.R.’s best interest to be placed with N.B. Thereafter, N.B. appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it was interlocutory and barred by 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4006. View "In re L.R." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the parents of two young daughters. Father was psychologically abusive to the family, most particularly to Mother. When Father, who was not a dentist, expressed his intent to perform dental work one of his daughters, Mother left the home with the children and obtained a child protection order against Father. The district court subsequently found that Father had subjected the children to circumstances of jeopardy and found the existence of an aggravating factor as defined by 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4002(1-B)(A)(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) appropriately considered Father’s past actions when it found that the children had been placed in circumstances of jeopardy; and (2) correctly found that Father’s abuse was chronic, heinous and abhorrent to society. View "In re E.L." on Justia Law

In 2012, Sarah Clifford and Debra Clifford petitioned the probate court for temporary guardianship of Tasha Young’s minor child. The court granted the Cliffords a temporary guardianship for a period of six months. Young appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the award of temporary guardianship and that the court erred in its evidentiary rulings at trial and in denying her request for expert witness fees. Because the temporary guardianship expired by the time the Supreme Court heard the appeal, the matter was moot, and the Court dismissed the appeal. View "In re Guardianship of Young" on Justia Law

While Mother and S.S.’s divorce was pending, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition for a child protection order on behalf of K.S., Mother’s child, alleging that Mother and S.S. placed K.S. in jeopardy. The jeopardy hearing and divorce hearing were held at the same time. The district court subsequently entered an order awarding DHHS custody of K.S. and finding that S.S. (1) was K.S.’s de facto parent, (2) placed K.S. in jeopardy, and (3) was entitled to reunification services. Mother appealed, arguing that S.S. was not entitled to any reunification services or other rights regarding K.S. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as K.S.’s de facto parent, S.S. was entitled to the same rights as Mother, including reunification efforts; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of jeopardy. View "In re K.S." on Justia Law

Husband and Wife were married and had a daughter who was born in 2006. In 2009, Husband filed a complaint for divorce. In 2012, the family law magistrate appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the child. In 2013, after a trial, the district court entered an amended divorce judgment awarding shared parental rights and responsibilities in most respects, allocating primary residence of the child to Husband, and ordering that Mother engage in post-judgment counseling with a counselor approved by the GAL. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the consent provision of Maine’s Interception of Wire and Oral Communications Act authorizes a parent to vicariously consent, on behalf of his or her minor child, to intercept the child’s oral or wire communications with another party when the parent has a good faith, objectively reasonable belief that it is necessary and in the child’s best interest to do so, and the record supported the district court’s determination that Father provided such vicarious consent in this case; and (2) the district court erred in ordering that the GAL continue services post-judgment to approve Mother’s counselor. View "Griffin v. Griffin" on Justia Law

The district court entered a divorce judgment awarding shared primary residence of Larry Nadeau and Jessica Potila’s minor children, determining child support, and allocating the dependent income tax exemptions. Nadeau appealed and Potila cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in awarding shared primary residence; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Nadeau a deviation from the child support guidelines; and (3) did not err in finding that Potila failed to meet her burden of proving that a portion of the value of the marital residence, owned by Nadeau prior to the marriage, was marital. View "Potila v. Nadeau" on Justia Law