Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Husband and Wife separated, they stipulated to shared parental rights and responsibilities for their two children. The district court later entered a divorce judgment determining marital property, marital debt, and spousal support. The court concluded that the circumstances of his case warranted an equal division of marital property and debt even though Husband had a significantly greater earning capacity than Wife. Wife appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for reconsideration of the property distribution and debt allocation, holding that the gulf between the parties' expected post-marriage earnings did not constitute a circumstance that would justify an equal division of marital property and debt. On remand, the court was instructed to reconsider the issues of spousal support and attorney fees along with the parties' financial relationship. View "Thumith v. Thumith" on Justia Law

Child was placed with her maternal grandaunt (Grandaunt) after child was removed from her mother's custody. The district court subsequently terminated Parents' parental rights to Child. Child was kept with Grandaunt until the Department of Health and Human Services reconsidered placing Child on adoption with Grandaunt and eventually removed Child from Grandaunt's care. Grandaunt subsequently filed a motion to intervene in the child protection proceeding and filed a motion for a placement hearing. The trial court denied the motions without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Grandaunt failed to establish a permanent and legally recognized relationship with Child after having an opportunity to do so, the trial court did not err in declining her motion to intervene; and (2) because Grandaunt did not qualify as a relative and was properly denied intervenor status, she did not have standing to seek placement of Child with her. View "In re N.W." on Justia Law

The day after J.R. was born, he entered the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services due to his parents' violent relationship, their substance abuse, and J.R.'s display of symptoms of drug withdrawals. Mother and Father agreed to reunification plans. After a hearing, the district court found J.R. was in circumstances of jeopardy while in the parents' care. Thereafter, the Department filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. After a hearing, the district court entered an order terminating the parental rights of both parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that termination was in the best interest of J.R.; (2) finding that Father was unfit; and (3) denying Father's motion to recuse and in denying Father's attorney's motion to withdraw. View "In re J.R." on Justia Law

Two minor children were removed from Mother's home based on allegations of domestic violence and substance abuse. After a trial, the trial court terminated both Mother's and Father's parental rights, finding three bases of unfitness as to each parent and determining that termination of each parent's parental rights was in the children's best interest. Mother and Father appealed, arguing, among other things, that the children were at risk of being in long-term foster care in part because the children were both over the age of ten. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err finding that both Mother and Father were unfit to parent the children; and (2) the court acted within its discretion when it determined that, for the children, being freed for adoption was much preferable to waiting for either parent to create a safe home for them. View "In re C.P." on Justia Law

Wife filed a complaint for divorce from Husband in 2010. Upon the filing of the divorce complaint, an injunction automatically issued barring either party from transferring marital property without the written consent of the parties or the permission of the court. Despite the outstanding injunction, Husband transferred certain marital assets to third parties. The district court later entered a judgment finding Husband committed financial misconduct through his criminal activity and by distributing assets during the divorce in violation of the court's injunction. The court also determined the parental rights and responsibilities as to the child of the marriage and distributed what remained of the marital estate. Wife appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment because it did not address Husband's responsibility for child support. Remanded with directions for the court to review its entire judgment to ensure that the judgment reflected an equitable resolution of the financial disputes between the parties in light of Husband's apparent violation of the court's financial preliminary injunction. View "King v. King" on Justia Law

After Father tested positive three times for marijuana use in violation of conditions of probation, the Department of Health and Human Resources removed Father's son, T.B., from Father's care. Father was incarcerated for a third time during a reunification period with T.B., and the Department subsequently filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. Father moved for substitution of court-appointed counsel, which the district court denied on the grounds that the trial was to start in two days. After a three-week continuance, the trial was held, and the court terminated Father's parental rights. Father appealed, contending that he was denied due process when the district court did not, on its own initiative, inform him that he could proceed without counsel after denying his motion to dismiss his current counsel or his implicit motion to appoint new counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant were divorced in 2005. In 2008, the parties stipulated to a modification of the divorce judgment. The modified divorce judgment required Defendant to pay Plaintiff weekly spousal and child support and to file a motion to modify his child support obligation within thirty days of becoming employed. Plaintiff later filed a motion for contempt. The district court concluded that Defendant had violated the divorce judgment as modified because he owed past-due child support and because he had failed to move the court to modify his child support obligation after becoming employed. The court then found Defendant in contempt, ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff's attorney fees and ordered Defendant be incarcerated for sixty days, allowing Defendant to purge himself of contempt by paying the $46,272 he owed within sixty days. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the court's order of coercive imprisonment, holding that Defendant's coercive imprisonment could not be made conditional upon his payment of a sum that included amounts Defendant owed for a compensatory fine and newly imposed attorney fees; and (2) affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "Dostanko v. Dostanko" on Justia Law

The Maine Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the Mother and Father of two minor children. After a termination hearing, the district court found the Department had made diligent and reasonable efforts to rehabilitate and reunify the family but that termination of parental rights as to both parents was in the best interests of the children. Both parents appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate the parents' due process rights by issuing an order terminating their parental rights before receiving their post-trial briefs and by admitting into evidence statements that one of the parents' children made to the court without counsel for the parents being present; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove that the parents were unfit and that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re M.B." on Justia Law

After Stepmother and Father separated, Father's son, Stepmother's stepson (Stepson) continued to live with Stepmother. Stepmother subsequently filed a protection from abuse complaint against Father on behalf of herself, two of her biological children, and Stepson. Stepmother also petitioned for full guardianship of Stepson. Thereafter, Stepmother requested temporary parental rights and responsibilities for Stepson at the protection and abuse hearing. The district court awarded protection to all four petitioners but denied Stepmother's request for temporary parental rights and responsibilities for Stepson. The probate court then awarded Stepmother full guardianship of Stepson. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the portion of the trial court's judgment denying temporary parental rights and responsibilities to Stepmother, holding that the protection from abuse statute permits the court to award temporary parental rights to a stepparent, and the award would not have violated Father's due process rights; and (2) otherwise affirmed. View "Sparks v. Sparks" on Justia Law

Dale and Diane Charette's divorce incorporated a settlement agreement in which the parties agreed that Dale would pay Diane $200 per week as general spousal support. The district court later reduced Dale's spousal support obligation to $165, finding that a reduction was warranted due to Dale's significantly changed medical circumstances. After Dale failed to make several of the reduced payments, the court first granted Diane's motion to enforce and then found Dale to be in contempt for failing to pay support as ordered. Dale, meanwhile, filed a second motion to modify, which the trial court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to further lower Dale's spousal support obligation on the ground that Diane was cohabitating with someone; (2) the court's factual finding that Dale was able to continue paying $165 per week in support was not clearly erroneous; and (3) the court did not err in ordering Dale to pay an additional $400 per month until the arrearage he had accumulated was cleared, as there was ample competent evidence to support the court's finding that Dale had the ability to make the additional payments. View "Charette v. Charette" on Justia Law