Justia Maine Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her son pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv). The court held (1) given the trial court’s findings of fact, all of which were supported by competent evidence in the record, the court did not err in its unfitness determination, nor did it err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest; and (2) the Department of Health and Human Services complied with Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4041 by developing an adequate reunification plan and made a good faith effort to cooperate with and seek the participation of Mother throughout these proceedings. View "In re Landon S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Parents to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv). Specifically, the court held that the findings were sufficient to support the trial court’s determinations that Parents were unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs, that they had failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child, and that termination of the Parents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Braxton M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their twin sons and the parental rights of Mother to her daughter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv). The Supreme Court held, contrary to the parents’ contentions on appeal, that competent evidence in the record supported the court’s findings that Parents were unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and otherwise take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs and that Father failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the children’s grandmother’s testimony as hearsay. View "In re Hope H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Eric Teele’s motion to modify his child support obligation to his former wife but denying his request to be reimbursed for support he had paid during a period when he was disabled. Teele requested the reimbursement because, as a result of his disability, the parties’ two children received a retroactive lump-sum dependent benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA) covering the same period when he had made payments. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the district court did not err in its interpretation and application of Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 2107 and Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 2009(2) in denying Teele’s request for reimbursement of child support during a period during which the children received retroactive dependent benefits from the SSA. View "Teele v. West-Harper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court affirming a decision of the Cape Elizabeth Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which determined that the Cape Elizabeth Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) had properly issued a building permit to Cunner Lane LLC. An abutting property owner appealed. The court remanded the case for the CEO to deny the application, holding that there was no competent evidence in the record showing that Cunner Lane LLC’s permit application met the requirements of Cape Elizabeth, Me. Zoning Ordinance 19-7-9(A)(2). View "Fissmer v. Town of Cape Elizabeth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal from a judgment of the district court adopting the order of a family law magistrate granting Mother’s motion to modify a child support order included in the divorce judgment between Burdin and Anthony Kline. The child support order did not order Kline to pay child support. Burdin later filed a motion to modify the child support provisions of the divorce judgment, seeking an order requiring Kline to pay child support calculated pursuant to the child support guidelines. A magistrate granted Burdin’s motion. Kline appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and remanded the case because there is no right of direct appeal from a magistrate’s order. On remand, the district court treated Kline’s appeal as a Me. R. Civ. P. 118(a) objection to the magistrate’s order and adopted that order as the court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 118(a)(2). Kline appealed from the court’s adoption of the magistrate’s order. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal because Kline failed to file a timely objection to the magistrate’s order as required by Rule 118, therefore waiving both his right to contest it in district court and to appeal. View "Kline v. Burdin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court concluding that a provider’s participation in MaineCare constitutes a “license,” the revocation of which invokes the district court jurisdiction. The superior court declared that the district court, and not the Department of Health and Human Services, had exclusive original jurisdiction over the decision to terminate a doctor’s participation in, and reimbursement from, MaineCare and any other medical assistance programs in the state of Maine. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment entered in favor of the doctor and remanded the matter, holding that the Department’s decision to terminate the doctor’s participation in the MaineCare program did not fall within the licensing decisions over which the legislature gave the district court original and exclusive jurisdiction. View "Doane v. Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The district court erred by issuing an order for protection from abuse entered in the district court on a complaint filed by Susan Chretien because the court explicitly did not find that Russell Chretien had abused Susan. The district court found that Russell presented a “credible threat” but concluded that it was not going to find that Susan was, in fact, abused by Russell. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) Russell’s appeal remained justiciable even though the protective order had expired; and (2) because the court concluded that Susan failed to prove any form of abuse, the court erred in issuing a protective order. View "Chretien v. Chretien" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court denied Robert M.A. Nadeau’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s June 20, 2017 decision in this judicial disciplinary matter. In his motion, Nadeau argued that the sanctions imposed on him - including a two-year suspension from he practice of law and $5,000 forfeiture - for his numerous violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct violated his equal protection and due process of law rights and also violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the two-year suspension from the practice of law did not violate Nadeau’s rights to equal protection and due process of law; and (2) a sanction affecting Nadeau’s license to practice law was not misplaced. View "In re Robert M.A. Nadeau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court concluding that the second foreclosure action filed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) against Patricia and Paul Deschaine was barred as a matter of law by the judgment dismissing with prejudice Fannie Mae’s earlier foreclosure action against the Deschaines. The first foreclosure action was dismissed with prejudice because the parties failed to comply with the court’s pretrial order. The judgment later became final. The next year, Fannie Mae filed its second complaint for foreclosure involving the same property and based on the same note and mortgage. The superior court granted the Deschaines’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that this second foreclosure claim was precluded by principles of res judicata. View "Federal National Mortgage Association v. Deschaine" on Justia Law