Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her five children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) district court’s findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) the district court did not err in its finding of parental unfitness and did not err in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the children’s best interests; and (3) contrary to Mother’s arguments, the Department of Health and Human Services complied with Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4041 by providing Mother with home community treatment services. View "In re Aiden J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the probate court terminating Father’s parental rights to his two daughters in anticipation of an adoption. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the probate court’s finding of parental unfitness and its determination of the children’s best interests were not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. Specifically, the court held (1) the record did not include sufficient evidence regarding parental unfitness, the best interests of the children, and the history of the prospective adopting parent; (2) the court improperly excluded Father’s testimony regarding his future plans for reunification with his children; and (3) the court abused its discretion in concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Adoption of Isabelle T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments entered in two cases in the Unified Criminal Docket after a consolidated jury-waived trial. In the first case, the court found in favor of Defendant on the State’s complaint alleging that Defendant had fished without a valid fishing license. In the other case, the court denied the State’s petition for forfeiture of lobsters seized from Defendant’s boat. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the court did not err in concluding that the State had not met its burden of proving that Defendant’s fishing activity was unlawful; and (2) consequently, the court did not err by concluding that the lobsters seized from Defendant’s boat were not subject to forfeiture. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of the superior court, which vacated the district court’s order denying Mark Walker’s motion to set aside the default judgment in this small claims case. Because Walker appealed from the district court’s exercise of discretion in denying his motion to set aside the default, the superior court’s authority was purely on questions of law. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the superior court made certain factual findings that exceeded its authority and vacated the district court’s judgment based on facts it found independently, and therefore, the superior court exceeded its authority. The court remanded the case to the superior court with instructions to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in adjudicating the motion to set aside the default without a hearing. View "Taylor v. Walker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint charging him with operating under the influence (OUI). In his motion to dismiss, Defendant argued that because he had already been convicted on a complaint containing the identical charging language, forcing him to defend against the charge violated his rights under the federal and state constitutions to be free from double jeopardy. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis, the two complaints did not arise from the same act or transaction and, therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not require the dismissal of the complaint at issue. View "State v. Martinelli" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court modifying a divorce judgment to confer sole parental rights and responsibilities on Mother and impose conditions on Father’s contact with the parties’ four children. The court held (1) the district court did not misinterpret or misapply Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1653(3) in prioritizing the children’s safety and well-being when determining the children’s best interests; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in ordering Father to undergo sobriety testing before and during all visits with the children and to have a psychological evaluation and begin any recommended treatment before the children resume overnight visits in his home. View "Miller v. Nery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating after suspension, operating without a license, and operating an unregistered vehicle. The convictions were entered by the trial court after a jury found Defendant guilty. The court held (1) contrary to Defendant’s arguments on appeal, the trial court had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the matter; (2) Defendant forfeited most of his arguments on appeal by failing to offer any legal argument with citation to proper authority; and (3) to the extent that Defendant adequately presented his arguments on appeal, they were without merit. View "State v. Salisbury" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Parents’ parental rights to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv), with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. The court held that, given the court’s findings of fact that were supported by competent evidence in the record, the court adequately explained how the deficits of the parents rendered each parent unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child in time to meet his needs and adequately explained how Mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child. View "In re Ryan G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating her parental rights to her daughter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a). Given the district court’s findings and the court’s other extensive, specific findings of fact, all of which were supported by competent evidence in the record, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in its determination of unfitness, nor did it err or abuse its discretion 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 Anastasia M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv). On appeal, Father argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance and challenged the district court’s determination that termination was in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) Father failed to present a prima facie case of attorney ineffectiveness; and (2) the evidence in the record supported the district court’s findings and discretionary determination that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child. View "In re Tyrel L." on Justia Law