Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of the probate court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children in anticipation of adoptions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings that Father was an unfit parent and that termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests.Mother and Stepfather of the children filed petitions to adopt the children. Thereafter, Mother filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights, thereby freeing the children for adoption. The probate court subsequently entered judgments terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 9-204(b) and Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(2), (B)(2)(a), and (B)(2)(b)(ii). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence supported the court's findings of unfitness and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the children's best interests; (2) any mistake by the court in arranging its findings within the termination orders was not obvious error; and (3) the court did not err by failing to consider open adoptions that would have left Father's parental rights intact. View "Adoption by Stefan S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding child support to Father's sister (Aunt), holding that the court properly awarded child support to Aunt but erred in establishing its start date for Mother's past support obligation to Aunt.On appeal, Mother argued that the court erred in awarding past and ongoing child support to Aunt and in its calculation of Mother's income for purposes of child support. Mother further argued that child support should not have been ordered to begin on a date before the divorce complaint was filed. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the court did not err in its calculation of Mother's income for purposes of child support; (2) the court did not err in determining that it would be in Child's best interest to order Mother to pay child support, including past support, to Aunt; and (3) the Court erred in ordering child support to begin on a date before Mother commenced the divorce proceeding. View "Winn v. Martel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights or violate Father's constitutional rights.In terminating Father's parental rights the court found that Father was unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs and that termination of his parental rights was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding Father unfit or in determining that termination of Father's rights was in the child's best interest; and (2) the trial court did not commit obvious error in measuring the length of time Father needed to protect the child from jeopardy against the time within which the time should achieve permanency. View "In re Child of Corey B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing for lack of standing Uncle and Aunt's family matter complaint seeking a determination of de facto parentage as to Child, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Uncle and Aunt lacked standing.The paternal aunt and uncle of Child sought a determination of de facto parentage while a child protection matter was pending with respect to Child. The district court granted Uncle and Aunt's motion to intervene in the child protection matter and dismissed for lack of standing their family matter complaint seeking to establish de facto parentage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts did not compel a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Uncle and Aunt satisfied all necessary elements for establishing standing to seek de facto parentage. View "In re Child of Philip S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that two of Mother's children were in jeopardy to their health or welfare while in Mother's care, holding that Mother did not present a prima facie case of attorney ineffectiveness and that the record supported the court's evidentiary rulings.After a contested jeopardy hearing, the district court found jeopardy to the children based on the risk of physical and emotional harm and exposure to multiple unsafe people with a history of violence. Mother appealed, arguing that her trial counsel's assistance was ineffective and that the court abused its discretion by admitting certain statements by the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the record demonstrated assertive and effective assistance of counsel; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the children's statements; and (3) the court's finding that the children would be in circumstances of jeopardy in Mother's care was based on competent evidence in the record. View "In re Children of Brittany B." 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), and (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), holding that the court did not err in finding that Mother was an unfit parent.The district court concluded that Mother's parental rights should be terminated because Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child and those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no error of law or abuse of discretion in the court's termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re Child of Vanessa G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their three children, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings of parental unfitness.The district court entered a judgment terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their three children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings that the parents were unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them in a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings that both parents failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children; and (3) the court did not err in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Children of Troy P." on Justia Law

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