Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their children. The Court held that the findings of the lower court were sufficient to support the court’s determination that both parents were unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely not change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs and that both parents were unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. Further, the findings were sufficient to support the court’s finding that Mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children and that termination of both parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Children of Amber L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their children. The Court held that the findings of the lower court were sufficient to support the court’s determination that both parents were unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely not change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs and that both parents were unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. Further, the findings were sufficient to support the court’s finding that Mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children and that termination of both parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Children of Amber L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicially Court partially vacated the judgment of the district court granting Anne McBride’s motion to enforce Jeffrey Worth’s spousal support obligation pursuant to the parties’ divorce judgment, granting Worth’s motion to enforce McBride’s obligation to refinance the marital home, and granting Worth’s motion for division of omitted property because the judgment misstated Worth’s ongoing spousal support obligation, and the court’s intent regarding the amount to be withheld from Worth’s earnings to enforce his spousal support and arrears obligations was unclear. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for clarification and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "McBride v. Worth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicially Court partially vacated the judgment of the district court granting Anne McBride’s motion to enforce Jeffrey Worth’s spousal support obligation pursuant to the parties’ divorce judgment, granting Worth’s motion to enforce McBride’s obligation to refinance the marital home, and granting Worth’s motion for division of omitted property because the judgment misstated Worth’s ongoing spousal support obligation, and the court’s intent regarding the amount to be withheld from Worth’s earnings to enforce his spousal support and arrears obligations was unclear. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for clarification and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "McBride v. Worth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court dismissing Petitioner’s complaint seeking review of a disciplinary decision of the Department of Corrections. In dismissing the petition, the superior court entered sua sponte a decision stating that the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The record was otherwise devoid of any indication of the basis on which the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Judicial Court held that no jurisdictional defect was apparent from the record and remanded the matter to the superior court for the court to act on Petitioner’s application to proceed without payment of fees. View "Anctil v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Ranked-choice voting is the current statutory law of Maine for the primary elections scheduled for June 12, 2018.The superior court reported seven questions to the Supreme Judicial Court addressing the Secretary of State’s planned implementation of ranked-choice voting in Maine’s primary elections to be held on June 12, 2018. The Court answered Question 3 on its merits and held (1) the Court assumes without deciding that the Maine Senate has standing to seek a declaration regarding the legal status of ranked-choice voting in the June 2018 primary elections and to challenge in court the operational planning of the Secretary of State; (2) the answer to Question 3 is that ranked-choice voting is Maine’s statutory law for the June 2018 primary elections; (3) Questions 1 and 2 are not justiciable; and (4) the remaining questions are moot. View "Maine Senate v. Secretary of State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her daughter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its determination that termination was in the child’s best interest. Specifically, the Court held that given the lower court’s findings of fact, all of which were supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its finding of parental unfitness or in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Portia L." 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)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that the court did not err in its parental unfitness and best interest determinations and that Father was not denied due process. The Court held (1) the district court did not err by determining that Father was unfit because he was unable to “meet his son’s special needs and take responsibility for him in a reasonable time to meet those needs” and to “protect his son from jeopardy in a reasonable time to meet his needs” and that termination was in the child’s best interest; and (2) Father was not denied due process. View "In re Child of James R." 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)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that the court did not err in its parental unfitness and best interest determinations and that Father was not denied due process. The Court held (1) the district court did not err by determining that Father was unfit because he was unable to “meet his son’s special needs and take responsibility for him in a reasonable time to meet those needs” and to “protect his son from jeopardy in a reasonable time to meet his needs” and that termination was in the child’s best interest; and (2) Father was not denied due process. View "In re Child of James R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of divorce, defaulting Husband, holding that the district court did not err in determining that service by publication was adequate.When Wife filed a complaint for protection from abuse against Husband, Husband fled to Florida in order to evade service of process. Two months later, Wife prepared a complaint for divorce from Husband, but neither she nor the sheriff’s office was able to find him to serve him with the divorce complaint. The district court granted a motion for service of the divorce complaint by alternate means, allowing Wife to effect service by publishing notice of the complaint in the Lewiston Sun Journal. When Father failed to appear at the divorce hearing, the district court entered a judgment of divorce defaulting Husband. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Me. R. Civ. P. 4 did not impose a requirement that a copy of the order granting alternate service be personally delivered to Husband; and (2) the district court’s decision not to require Wife to send an email to Husband’s possible email address or notify Husband’s attorney of the order for service by publication did not result in a failure of due process. View "Schulz v. Doeppe" on Justia Law