Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

After a hearing, Mother's rights to her two-year-old daughter were terminated. The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother abandoned the child, that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy, and that the child was thriving in the foster home. Mother appealed, arguing that she was denied due process because her attorney was ineffective and that insufficient evidence supported the judgment of termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in concluding that termination was in the child's best interest; and (2) Mother was not denied due process because her attorney provided effective assistance of counsel. View "In re S.P." on Justia Law

Fourteen-year-old Kenneth's paternal aunt (Aunt) and her son filed joined petitions for the appointment of a conservator and guardian based on Kenneth's mother's (Mother) inability to create a tolerable living situation for Kenneth. The probate court appointed Mother and Aunt as Kenneth's coguardians subject to Mother's compliance with certain conditions. The court's order provided that if Mother failed to comply with any of the conditions then Aunt could remove Kenneth from Mother's residence, and the court would then terminate Mother's guardianship. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that the probate court's order could not be reconciled with the principles established in Guardianship of Jewel M. View "In re Guardianship of Kenneth" on Justia Law

Michael filed a complaint for divorce from Laurel. The district court dissolved Michael's marriage to Laurel and ordered Michael to (1) maintain health insurance for Laurel as an element of spousal support, and (2) be responsible for Laurel's future nonmarital federal tax debt. The Supreme Court vacated portions of the divorce judgment, holding that the district court (1) erred in awarding spousal support without making findings about the costs of the mandated health care insurance payments or the health care insurance alternatives and in ordering Michael to provide health insurance coverage for Laurel indefinitely; and (2) erred in failing to clarify the tax years to which it intended its order regarding tax payments to apply. Remanded. View "Finucan v. Williams" on Justia Law

Less than eighteen months after the district court entered a judgment granting Husband and Wife a divorce, Husband moved to terminate spousal support payments. Wife did not file a response or opposition to the motion but did appear with counsel at a hearing on the motion. The district court granted Husband's motion for the entry of a default judgment against Wife on the ground that Wife failed to file an objection to Husband's motion as required by Me. R. Civ. P. 7(c). The default judgment terminated spousal support. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the court erred as a matter of law in applying Rule 7 and not Me. R. Civ. P. 105 and in failing to allow Wife to be heard on the substance of Husband's motion. Remanded. View "Bertin v. Bertin" on Justia Law

After Husband and Wife separated, they stipulated to shared parental rights and responsibilities for their two children. The district court later entered a divorce judgment determining marital property, marital debt, and spousal support. The court concluded that the circumstances of his case warranted an equal division of marital property and debt even though Husband had a significantly greater earning capacity than Wife. Wife appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for reconsideration of the property distribution and debt allocation, holding that the gulf between the parties' expected post-marriage earnings did not constitute a circumstance that would justify an equal division of marital property and debt. On remand, the court was instructed to reconsider the issues of spousal support and attorney fees along with the parties' financial relationship. View "Thumith v. Thumith" on Justia Law

Child was placed with her maternal grandaunt (Grandaunt) after child was removed from her mother's custody. The district court subsequently terminated Parents' parental rights to Child. Child was kept with Grandaunt until the Department of Health and Human Services reconsidered placing Child on adoption with Grandaunt and eventually removed Child from Grandaunt's care. Grandaunt subsequently filed a motion to intervene in the child protection proceeding and filed a motion for a placement hearing. The trial court denied the motions without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Grandaunt failed to establish a permanent and legally recognized relationship with Child after having an opportunity to do so, the trial court did not err in declining her motion to intervene; and (2) because Grandaunt did not qualify as a relative and was properly denied intervenor status, she did not have standing to seek placement of Child with her. View "In re N.W." on Justia Law

The day after J.R. was born, he entered the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services due to his parents' violent relationship, their substance abuse, and J.R.'s display of symptoms of drug withdrawals. Mother and Father agreed to reunification plans. After a hearing, the district court found J.R. was in circumstances of jeopardy while in the parents' care. Thereafter, the Department filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. After a hearing, the district court entered an order terminating the parental rights of both parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that termination was in the best interest of J.R.; (2) finding that Father was unfit; and (3) denying Father's motion to recuse and in denying Father's attorney's motion to withdraw. View "In re J.R." on Justia Law

Two minor children were removed from Mother's home based on allegations of domestic violence and substance abuse. After a trial, the trial court terminated both Mother's and Father's parental rights, finding three bases of unfitness as to each parent and determining that termination of each parent's parental rights was in the children's best interest. Mother and Father appealed, arguing, among other things, that the children were at risk of being in long-term foster care in part because the children were both over the age of ten. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err finding that both Mother and Father were unfit to parent the children; and (2) the court acted within its discretion when it determined that, for the children, being freed for adoption was much preferable to waiting for either parent to create a safe home for them. View "In re C.P." on Justia Law

Wife filed a complaint for divorce from Husband in 2010. Upon the filing of the divorce complaint, an injunction automatically issued barring either party from transferring marital property without the written consent of the parties or the permission of the court. Despite the outstanding injunction, Husband transferred certain marital assets to third parties. The district court later entered a judgment finding Husband committed financial misconduct through his criminal activity and by distributing assets during the divorce in violation of the court's injunction. The court also determined the parental rights and responsibilities as to the child of the marriage and distributed what remained of the marital estate. Wife appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment because it did not address Husband's responsibility for child support. Remanded with directions for the court to review its entire judgment to ensure that the judgment reflected an equitable resolution of the financial disputes between the parties in light of Husband's apparent violation of the court's financial preliminary injunction. View "King v. King" on Justia Law

After Father tested positive three times for marijuana use in violation of conditions of probation, the Department of Health and Human Resources removed Father's son, T.B., from Father's care. Father was incarcerated for a third time during a reunification period with T.B., and the Department subsequently filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. Father moved for substitution of court-appointed counsel, which the district court denied on the grounds that the trial was to start in two days. After a three-week continuance, the trial was held, and the court terminated Father's parental rights. Father appealed, contending that he was denied due process when the district court did not, on its own initiative, inform him that he could proceed without counsel after denying his motion to dismiss his current counsel or his implicit motion to appoint new counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law