Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) there was competent evidence to support the district court’s finding of parental unfitness and the finding that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its best-interest determination; and (3) the record supported the court’s finding that the Department made a good faith effort to reunify Mother and child and that Mother repeatedly failed to follow the reunification plan. View "In re Child of Christine M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her youngest child, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding of parental unfitness, and the court did not err in its conclusion that Mother was unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for him within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and (2) Mother received effective assistance of counseling during the hearing on the termination of her parental rights. View "In re Child of Kimberlee C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Father and Mother to their child, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After a hearing on the petition filed by the Department of Health and Human Services, the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that both parents were unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that the parents failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child. See Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, based on these findings of fact, which were supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its unfitness determination, did not abuse its discretion by determining that it was in the child’s best interest to terminate both parents’ parental rights, and that the Department satisfied its obligations under the statute. View "In re Child of Heath D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.On appeal, Father challenged the district court’s determination that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of his child rather than a permanency guardianship with the child’s maternal grandmother. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights and adoption with the child’s grandmother was best for the child. View "In re Child of Joshua S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court affirming the decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board in favor of the Fraternal Order of Police (the Union) on Plaintiff’s prohibited practice complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by the Union on its negotiations with the Town of Madison, holding that the facts found by the Board were supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.Plaintiff, a member of the Town’s former police department, argued that the Union acted arbitrarily in handling collective bargaining over the impact of the Town’s elimination of its police department. The Board determined that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record did not compel a determination that the Union’s actions and its representatives were so outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational. View "Trask v. Fraternal Order of Police" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part an order of the trial court suppressing evidence seized pursuant to a warrantless search of Defendant’s jacket and vehicle, holding that the search of Defendant’s jacket was a lawful search incident to arrest but that the search of Defendant’s vehicle was not supported by probable cause and was outside the scope of a vehicle search incident to arrest.The trial court concluded that the searches of Defendant’s jacket and vehicles and the seizure of the evidence was not supported by probable cause and violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The State appealed, arguing that the search of Defendant’s jacket was a lawful search incident to her arrest and that the evidence discovered in the jacket supported the subsequent search for the illegal drugs discovered in Defendant’s vehicle. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with respect to the search of Defendant’s jacket but vacated the suppression order as to the evidence found in the vehicle. View "State v. Pagnani" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal brought by the Department of Health and Human Services (Department) from a partial judgment entered in the Business and Consumer Docket mandating the implementation of one provision of the citizen initiative expanding Medicaid coverage.The initiating petition in this case requested numerous forms of relief. The superior court addressed only one component of the requested relief due to ripeness issues. The Supreme Judicial Court decided that it must dismiss this appeal as interlocutory because the petition was not disposed of in its entirety and no exception to the final judgment rule existed. View "Maine Equal Justice Partners v. Commissioner, Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court denying Jerry Philogene’s motion to set aside a default and for relief from a judgment, holding that Philogene demonstrated excusable neglect.The default judgment in this case extinguished Philogene’s property rights to $16,545 in cash seized as part of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, initiated following a motor vehicle stop and the filing of criminal charges connected with Philogene’s operation of the vehicle. After entry of the default judgment, Philogene filed a motion to set aside the default and for relief from the judgment. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Philogene’s assumption that his criminal attorney was representing him in the civil forfeiture matter did not constitute excusable neglect and that Philogene’s claim that he possessed the $16,545 in order to purchase a car for his sister did not constitute a meritorious defense. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) Philogene showed a reasonable excuse for his inattention to the forfeiture proceedings; and (2) Philogene demonstrated a meritorious defense to the underlying charges. View "State v. Philogene" on Justia Law

At issue was the availability of homeowner’s liability insurance coverage for damages resulting from injuries Jonathan Ben-Ami received after Joshua Francoeur, a fellow high-school student, punched Ben-Ami a number of times in the face.Francoeur was the son of the named insured under a policy issued by Vermont Mutual Insurance Company. The superior court entered a declaratory judgment determining that Francoeur’s tortious conduct did not fall within a policy exclusion from coverage for bodily injury that is “expected or intended,” and therefore, that Ben-Ami was entitled to indemnification under the policy. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for Vermont Mutual, holding that Francoeur’s specific conduct established that the damages he inflicted on Ben-Ami were “expected” and therefore excluded from coverage by the Vermont Mutual policy. View "Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ben-Ami" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for four counts of gross sexual assault and other sex offenses, holding that none of Defendant’s assignments of error required reversal.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on eight of the eleven counts for which he was convicted because the State is not required to present specific evidence of separate and discrete incidents of abuse for the jury to convict a defendant of every charged offense, as long as the jury is instructed on specific unanimity; (2) Defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by the trial court’s admission into evidence of uncharged sexual abuse; and (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to previous unlawful sexual contact charges under the limitations period. View "State v. Reynolds" on Justia Law