Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case involving the report of a neutral investigator - an employee of a law firm and the law firm - retained to provide a report to a governmental entity in a personnel matter, the Supreme Judicial Court held that that the employee and the law firm were protected by the employee immunity provision of the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 8108-8188.Appellee filed a claim alleging that Appellants, a law firm and its nonattorney employee, were negligent and preparing and presenting an investigative report regarding Appellee's conduct while serving as the coordinator of the University of Southern Maine's Multi-Cultural Student Affairs. The district court denied Appellants' special motion to dismiss pursuant to the anti-SLAPP law and denied Appellants' motion asserting immunity pursuant to the MTCA. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order on the special motion to dismiss and vacated the motion to dismiss on MTCA grounds, holding (1) the trial court correctly determined that the investigative report at issue in this appeal did not constitute petitioning activity within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute; and (2) because Appellants were performing a governmental function on behalf of a governmental entity, the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss based on MTCA immunity. View "Hamilton v. Woodsum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of the district court granting the Town of Gorham's motion to enforce a consent decree entered earlier in a land-use dispute, holding that there was not a proper record to support the trial court's findings.The Town filed a land-use enforcement claim in the district court charging Defendants with violations of the Gorham Land Use and Development Code. The parties settled the dispute by agreeing to terms set forth in a consent decree, and the trial court ordered the consent decree to be entered as a judgment. The Town then filed a motion to enforce the consent decree, alleging noncompliance on the part of Defendants. The court granted the Town's motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding that the court order was not supported by competent evidence in the record. View "Town of Gorham v. Duchaine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed this appeal from the judgment of a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denying Appellant's petition for habeas corpus, holding that this appeal presented issues that were moot and that none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.Appellant was charged with multiple juvenile offenses. The district court ordered him held at Long Creek Youth Development Center while awaiting trial. The proceedings were suspended when Appellant was determined to be incompetent to stand trial. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking release from Long Creek. The single justice denied the petition. Appellant appealed. Before oral argument, Appellant was released from Long Creek and placed in a residential treatment facility, and the charges against him were dismissed. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal was moot and that none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. View "A.I. v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of the probate court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children in anticipation of adoptions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings that Father was an unfit parent and that termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests.Mother and Stepfather of the children filed petitions to adopt the children. Thereafter, Mother filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights, thereby freeing the children for adoption. The probate court subsequently entered judgments terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 9-204(b) and Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(2), (B)(2)(a), and (B)(2)(b)(ii). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence supported the court's findings of unfitness and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the children's best interests; (2) any mistake by the court in arranging its findings within the termination orders was not obvious error; and (3) the court did not err by failing to consider open adoptions that would have left Father's parental rights intact. View "Adoption by Stefan S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding child support to Father's sister (Aunt), holding that the court properly awarded child support to Aunt but erred in establishing its start date for Mother's past support obligation to Aunt.On appeal, Mother argued that the court erred in awarding past and ongoing child support to Aunt and in its calculation of Mother's income for purposes of child support. Mother further argued that child support should not have been ordered to begin on a date before the divorce complaint was filed. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the court did not err in its calculation of Mother's income for purposes of child support; (2) the court did not err in determining that it would be in Child's best interest to order Mother to pay child support, including past support, to Aunt; and (3) the Court erred in ordering child support to begin on a date before Mother commenced the divorce proceeding. View "Winn v. Martel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights or violate Father's constitutional rights.In terminating Father's parental rights the court found that Father was unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs and that termination of his parental rights was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding Father unfit or in determining that termination of Father's rights was in the child's best interest; and (2) the trial court did not commit obvious error in measuring the length of time Father needed to protect the child from jeopardy against the time within which the time should achieve permanency. View "In re Child of Corey B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing for lack of standing Uncle and Aunt's family matter complaint seeking a determination of de facto parentage as to Child, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Uncle and Aunt lacked standing.The paternal aunt and uncle of Child sought a determination of de facto parentage while a child protection matter was pending with respect to Child. The district court granted Uncle and Aunt's motion to intervene in the child protection matter and dismissed for lack of standing their family matter complaint seeking to establish de facto parentage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts did not compel a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Uncle and Aunt satisfied all necessary elements for establishing standing to seek de facto parentage. View "In re Child of Philip S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that two of Mother's children were in jeopardy to their health or welfare while in Mother's care, holding that Mother did not present a prima facie case of attorney ineffectiveness and that the record supported the court's evidentiary rulings.After a contested jeopardy hearing, the district court found jeopardy to the children based on the risk of physical and emotional harm and exposure to multiple unsafe people with a history of violence. Mother appealed, arguing that her trial counsel's assistance was ineffective and that the court abused its discretion by admitting certain statements by the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the record demonstrated assertive and effective assistance of counsel; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the children's statements; and (3) the court's finding that the children would be in circumstances of jeopardy in Mother's care was based on competent evidence in the record. View "In re Children of Brittany B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary judgment entered in the superior court in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's complaint for defamation and "slander/libel per se," holding that the superior court did not err in concluding that the statements at issue were subject to a conditional privilege.Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages in her complaint alleging defamation and slander or libel per se, alleging that Defendants terminated her contract as a registered nurse based on false allegations of patient abuse. The superior court granted a summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to both counts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to present prima facie evidence that Defendants abused the conditional privilege that otherwise protected the statements at issue; and (2) therefore, Defendants were entitled to summary judgment in their favor as to Plaintiff's claims. View "Waugh v. Genesis Healthcare LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), and (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), holding that the court did not err in finding that Mother was an unfit parent.The district court concluded that Mother's parental rights should be terminated because Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child and those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no error of law or abuse of discretion in the court's termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re Child of Vanessa G." on Justia Law