Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments entered by the probate court terminating Father’s parental rights to his two children in anticipation of an adoption, holding that the court did not err in its use of statements made by one of the children during an in camera interview and that there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding of parental unfitness as to both children.The probate court terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 9-204(a)-(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) any errors made by the probate court with regard to statements given by S.S. during the in camera interview were harmless; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s findings; and (3) Father was not deprived of a fair trial or treated unjustly as a result of the trial court’s erroneous sequence of its fact-finding. View "In re Adoption of Shayleigh S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court affirming the decision of the Department of Health and Human Services to deny John Doe’s request for a review of the Department’s 2003 substantiation of him for sexual abuse of a minor, holding that the Department’s denial of Doe’s request as untimely violated Doe’s procedural due process rights.In 2003, the Department mailed a letter to Doe informing him that he had been substantiated for sexual abuse of a minor. When the Department substantiated Doe, a paper review established by a 2000 Department policy was the only appeal process available to an individual seeking to challenge a substantiation fining. The Department did not adopt the 2000 policy pursuant to the Maine Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 2017, the Department notified Doe that, based on his 2003 substantiation, his presence in a home where children were residing could lead to the removal of those children. Doe requested a hearing to review his 2003 substantiation, but the Department denied the request as untimely. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the Department’s 2000 policy was judicially unenforceable, the 2003 Department letter constitutionally flawed, and the Department’s denial of Doe’s request as untimely a violation of Doe’s procedural due process rights. View "Doe v. Department of Health & Human Services" 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), holding that the court’s findings were supported by competent in the record and were sufficient to support the court’s decision.Specifically, the Court held that the the court’s findings supported the court’s determination that (1) Mother was unable to protect the child from jeopardy and was unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; (2) Mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child; and (3) termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. View "In re Child of Stephenie F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of intentional or knowing murder and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, holding that the court did not err in the way it conducted voir dire and that the admission into evidence of two burglary convictions pursuant to Me. R. Evid. 609 was not an abuse of the court’s discretion.Specifically, the Court held that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion by not including in the juror vote dire questionnaire six of Defendant’s proposed juror questions and by not giving the prospective jurors the option of answering any of the questions with “not sure” as an alternative to “yes” or “no”; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of two prior burglary convictions to impeach Defendant’s trial testimony. View "State v. Burton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the City of Portland had proved that Appellant, the owner of an apartment building, had violated violated fire, electrical, and life safety provisions of Maine statutes and the Portland City Code, holding that the record supported the court’s decision.The City notified Appellant of code violations on eight occasions, but Appellant did not remedy significant violations that endangered her tenants. Ultimately, the City commenced an enforcement action. After a trial that Appellant failed to attend, the court found that the City had proved multiple code violations. The court imposed penalties on Appellant of more than $500,000, plus costs and attorneys fees. On appeal, Appellant challenged the district court’s determination of the penalties. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court correctly applied the statute governing penalties, Me. Rev. Stat. 30-A, 4452(3)(E). View "City of Portland v. Chau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his three children, holding that the court did not err in its unfitness or best interest determinations.Specifically, the Court held that the district court did not err in finding that Father remained unable to protect the children from jeopardy within a time that was reasonably calculated to meet their needs, failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child, and did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Child of Edward F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction of gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, and furnishing liquor to a minor, holding that the court did not err in determining that Appellant was competent to stand trial.Appellant entered conditional guilty pleas to all three charges. On appeal, Appellant argued primarily that the court erred when it determined that he was competent to stand trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the party seeking the determination of incompetence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is incompetent to proceed; and (2) the trial court in this case correctly allocated the burden of proof, applied the appropriate evidentiary standard, and did not err in finding Appellant competent to stand trial. View "State v. Gerrier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s unfitness and best interest determinations.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the record supported the findings, by clear and convincing evidence, and conclusions of the district court that (1) Father was unable to protect the child from jeopardy or to take responsibility for him within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and (2) termination was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Adam E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child, holding that sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding of parental unfitness and that the court did not abuse its discretion by terminating Father’s parental rights rather than imposing a permanency guardianship.After a hearing, the district court entered a judgment terminating Father’s parental rights after finding that he was unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for her within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father failed to alleviate jeopardy or be able to take responsibility for the child; and (2) the court did not err in determining that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Domenick B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv), holding that Father received sufficient notice of the termination hearing and that the court did not err by admitting the testimony of a Department of Health and Human Services supervisor.Father failed to appear but was fully represented by counsel at both the jeopardy hearing and the termination hearing. The court ultimately found that Father was unfit and that termination was in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Father’s notice of the termination hearing through service by publication was legally sufficient; and (2) the district court did not commit obvious error in failing to exclude from evidence, sua sponte, the testimony of the Department supervisor. View "In re Child of Kaysean M." on Justia Law