Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff and Defended were divorced pursuant to a judgment that required Defendant to transfer paperwork to Plaintiff, assure that Plaintiff's tractor and snow blower were in working condition, and make property settlement payments to Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff obtained a final protection from harassment (PFH) order that prohibited Defendant from having any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiff. Some months later, Plaintiff filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Defendant had failed to comply with the divorce judgment. The court concluded that Defendant was not in contempt regarding the property settlement payment, the paperwork, the tractor, or the snow blower because Plaintiff had failed to prove that Defendant could comply with the judgment as to these items without violating the PFH order's no-contact provision. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment insofar as it found that the PFH order prevented compliance with the divorce judgment. Remanded. View "Waltz v. Waltz" on Justia Law

When Mother's child was eleven weeks old, Mother left the infant in the care of her boyfriend. The boyfriend shook the baby and threw it into the couch, resulting in severe injuries to the child. The district court placed the child in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, finding that the child was in immediate risk of serious harm due to Mother's inability to protect him from physical abuse. The court subsequently conducted a full testimonial hearing, after which it issued an order finding jeopardy as to Mother and maintaining custody with the Department. The court also ordered the Department to cease reunification efforts with Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in issuing the cease reunification order. View "In re B.C." on Justia Law

The parents of L.E. appealed from a judgment of the county probate court terminating their parental rights. The mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence terminating her rights, and both parents argued that the court erred in failing to order attempts at rehabilitation and reunification prior to granting the petition for termination. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the record was sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that both parents were unfit, and that it was in the best interest of L.E. for the court to terminate parental rights and grant the adoption petition. View "In re Adoption of L.E." on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) appealed from a judgment entered in the district court modifying a child support order of the family law magistrate. DHHS asserted (1) the district court erred in crediting toward Father's support obligation the dependent benefit his daughter received based on his Social Security retirement account, and (2) the magistrate did not abuse her discretion in declining to deviate from the child support guidelines. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the district court's judgment, holding (1) the district court erred in granting Father credit toward his support obligation based on his daughter's Social Security retirement dependent benefit; and (2) the magistrate acted within the bounds of her discretion in concluding that a deviation was not warranted. Remanded with instructions to reinstate the magistrate's modification order. View "Wong v. Hawk" on Justia Law

Mother appealed from a judgment entered in the district court terminating her parental rights to her son. Mother argued (1) because she was in law enforcement custody on the morning of the trial, the court violated her due process rights by denying her motion to continue the proceedings; and (2) the district court erred in admitting testimony from one of the officers involved in her arrest because he had not been included in the Department of Health and Human Service's witness list; and (3) the court erred in its factual findings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother was not deprived of due process; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings or commit clear error in its factual findings. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law

Paul Clark obtained a temporary protection from abuse order on behalf of his thirteen-year-old son against Defendant Michelle Fundalewicz, the child’s mother and Paul’s ex-girlfriend. At the time, the child resided with Paul and Paul’s then-fiancée (now wife), Miranda Clark. The child received a phone call on the home’s landline while Paul or both Paul and Miranda were not home. The child eventually revealed that Defendant had called him earlier that day. Paul reported the incident to the police. The child provided a written statement to the police stating that Defendant did call and speak with him. The State charged Defendant with violation of a protection order; Defendant pled not guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to a jury-waived trial. At trial, the child testified that it was instead his cousin who called him. He testified that he said it was Defendant in his written statement to police because Paul had told him that if he did not name Defendant, the child would have to move back in with his mother where he would "get treated like crap" as he had been when he lived with her in the past. Miranda testified that a few days after the incident, she spoke with Defendant on the phone, and Defendant admitted to having called and spoken with the child. At the close of the trial, Defendant orally moved for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that "the State failed to establish a corpus for the offense charged" because the State did not provide "evidence independent of any potentially incriminating statements that [Fundalewicz] . . . made." The court denied the motion, found Defendant guilty of violating the protection order, and sentenced her to pay a $400 fine. Although largely circumstantial, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial, along with the reasonable inferences that could have been drawn from it, adequately supported the corpus delicti requirement, as well as the court’s finding that Defendant did in fact call her son in violation of the protection order. View "Maine v. Fundalewicz" on Justia Law

Alfred Miliano appealed a divorce judgment, contending that the court clearly erred or abused its discretion by: (1) erroneously classifying his nonmarital real property as marital property and then awarding certain parcels to Renee Miliano; and (2) awarding Renee general spousal support of $2500 per month until the death of either party or here remarriage. Because the evidentiary record was inadequate to overcome the conclusion that property purchased by Alfred before the marriage was nonmarital property, and the Supreme Court was uncertain of the trial court's intention regarding the allocation of property in lieu of spousal support. The Court remanded the case for clarification reconsideration. View "Miliano v. Miliano" on Justia Law

Defendant Colin Haag appealed his conviction on two counts of kidnapping after a jury trial at superior court. Defendant was charged with kidnapping stemming from divorce proceedings through which Defendant's ex-wife withheld access to Defendant's two daughters. On appeal, Defendant contended that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Upon review of the superior court record, the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to support Defendant's conviction, and affirmed the superior court's judgment. View "Maine v. Haag" on Justia Law

Jessica Hamm appealed a judgment of the district court awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' daughter to Budd Grant. Hamm argued that the court abused its discretion by relying largely on its determination that she willfully misused the protection from abuse process to the exclusion of other best interest factors and without making adequate findings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did no err in finding that Hamm willfully misused the protection from abuse process; (2) properly considered several of the best interest factors; and (3) did not err or abuse its discretion in its ultimate award of sole parental rights and responsibilities to Grant with limited rights of contact awarded to Hamm. View "Grant v. Hamm" on Justia Law

Andrew and Abby Desmond divorced pursuant to a judgment providing that their child would have primary physical residence with Abby and that no set schedule for contact with Andrew was anticipated as a result of Andrew's anticipated assignments as a U.S. Marine in other countries. On a motion to modify the divorce judgment, the court ordered that the child have regular and meaningful contact with Andrew, who was then based in Japan. After holding several status conferences and multiple case management conferences to assure that a summer visit occurred, Andrew ultimately declined to effectual a summer visit. The district court then entered an order determining that the visit could not occur and terminating the services of the guardian ad litem. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) determining that Andrew's decision not to propose an alternate schedule for the visit was "regrettable"; (2) terminating the services of the GAL; and (3) denying Andrew's Me. R. Civ. P. 52(b) motion. View "Desmond v. Desmond" on Justia Law