Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children, holding that there was sufficient evidence supporting an order terminating each parent's parental rights and that the Department of Health and Human Services provided appropriate and necessary reunification services.The district court terminated Mother's parental rights to her three children and terminated Father's parental rights to the child the parents had in common. Both parents appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's judgment terminating Parents' parental rights; and (2) the Department made good faith efforts to cooperate with Father in pursuit of the rehabilitation and reunification plan for him. View "In re Children of Danielle M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that the court did not err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unfit and that termination was in the child's best interest.Specifically, the Court found by clear and convincing evidence that even though Mother may be willing she was unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs. Further, the court found that Mother was unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs and that its was in the best interest of the child that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no clear error or abuse of discretion in the court's findings or analysis. View "In re Child of Charlene F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights.Mother left the hospital after giving birth to Child without taking Child with her. At the time of the termination hearing, Mother had not seen Child for more than a year. Despite having notice of a hearing for the termination of her parental rights, Mother did not appear. The district court terminated Mother's parental rights under Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (1)(B)(2)(A), (b)(i)-(iv). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support all four grounds of unfitness found by the district court; and (2) the record supported the court's determination that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. View "In re Child of Nichole W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv), holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding by clear and convincing evidence that each parent was unfit; (2) Mother's argument that her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection were violated when the court terminated her parental rights based solely on her financial status was grounded on a faulty premise; (3) the court did not err in declining to allow a witness who testified at the hearing to testify as an expert; and (4) the court's factual finding that Father's unorthodox sleep pattern was a choice and not a disability was not clearly erroneous, and therefore, the court did not err in declining to accommodate the sleep pattern. View "In re Child of Rebecca R." on Justia Law

In this divorce case, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Karen Fox's motion to enforce the provision of the divorce judgment requiring Elwood Fox to pay towards his children's college expenses, holding that there was no error of law or abuse of discretion in the court's findings or judgment.In a separate motion, Karen requested sanctions for filing a frivolous or contumacious appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court both affirmed the judgment on the motion to enforce and awarded Karen attorney fees, holding that a sanction was warranted for this frivolous appeal and that Karen demonstrated that she was entitled to reasonable attorney fees. View "Fox v. Fox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the court had sufficient to justify terminating Mother's parental rights after finding that she was unfit within the meaning of 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i) and (ii); (2) the trial court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child that Mother's parental rights be terminated; and (3) no violation of Mother's due process rights occurred. View "In re Child of Sherri Y." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's motion to modify an order determining her and Father's parental rights and responsibilities with respect to the parties' child, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in denying Mother's motion to modify.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court's findings were supported by evidence in the record and that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion by (1) failing to find that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the original determination of Mother's visitation rights with the child; and (2) determining that the child's best interests would not be served by granting Mother's motion to modify. View "Kelley v. McKee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment finding that two of Father's children were in circumstances of jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035(2) and that returning the children to Father's custody was likely to cause them serious emotional or physical damage pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. 1901-1963, holding that the court's factual findings supported its determination that the children were in jeopardy. Specifically, the Court held that, contrary to Father's contention, the court's findings established as more likely than not that returning the children to Father's custody would cause the children "[s]erious harm or [the] threat of serious harm." 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4002(6)(A). View "In re Children of Troy H." on Justia Law

In this child protection proceeding the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decisions of the district court entering a jeopardy order against Father and a later order adjudicating that he was the child's father, holding none of Father's challenges to the court's orders was persuasive.At the jeopardy hearing, the court found that Father was the child's biological father, that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy to his health or welfare, and that Father's abuse of the other child constituted an aggravating factor, entering a cease reunification order on that basis. Later, based on genetic test results revealing that Father was the child's biological parent, the court issued an order adjudicating that Father was the biological parent of the child. Father appealed both orders. As to the first order, Father argued that the court was required to adjudicate that he was a parent of the child before it could consider whether he presented circumstances of jeopardy to the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court correctly determined that Father was judicially estopped from challenging his parentage of the child; and (2) the court did not err by adjudicating Father's parentage without holding a hearing. View "In re Child of Nicholas P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the court did not err in finding abandonment and did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest.On appeal, Mother argued that the court erred as a matter of law in concluding that her failure to appear on the second day of the termination hearing constituted abandonment, in finding that she had the "intent to forego parental duties," and went beyond the scope of a termination proceeding by speculating about who would adopt the child post-termination. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in finding that Mother had the intent to forego her parental duties and had therefore abandoned the child; and (2) the court acted with in the scope of its authority in speculating that the child would be placed with the great-grandmother. View "In re Child of Olivia F." on Justia Law