Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child pursuant to Maine's Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act, 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4001 to 4099-H, and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. 1901-1963, holding that the district court did not err in terminating the parents' parental rights and denying their other requests for relief.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err by concluding that active efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, as required by ICWA; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court's determination that Mother was parentally unfit within the meaning of state law; (3) the district court did not err in denying Father's two motions to transfer the case to the Penobscot Nation Tribal Court; and (4) the district court did not err in denying Father's post-judgment motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. View "In re Child of Radience K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to modify the parties' divorce judgment and her mother for the court to reconsider that order, holding that the district court did not err in its judgment.On appeal, Appellant argued that the court summarily dismissed the guardian ad litem's report, testimony, and recommendations regarding primary residency and that the court erred by denying Appellant's motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the record evidence did not compel the court to conclude that it would be in the child's best interest to reside primarily with Appellant; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's motion for reconsideration; (3) the court did not "summarily dismiss" the court-appointed guardian ad litem's testimony; and (4) Appellant's contention that the court's analysis was incomplete was without merit. View "Roalsvik v. Comack" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the court properly determined that Mother was parentally unfit and that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children.The district court terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22. 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the record supported the court's finding that Mother was parentally unfit and that termination of her parental rights was in the children's best interests; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in its ultimate decision to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re Children of Jessica D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court modifying the terms of Appellant's divorce from Appellee as to parental rights and responsibilities for the parties' two children, holding that the district court erred in determining that the parties agreed to the terms of the modified divorce judgment.After the parties divorced, they both moved to modify the judgment as to parental rights and responsibilities. The parties and the guardian ad litem then engaged in a judicial settlement conference, after which the court stated that an agreement was reached. The court then entered a judgment purporting to memorialize that agreement without creating any record that would show the terms of any such agreement and the parties' confirmation of it. Appellant moved for relief from the judgment, arguing that the judgment did not accurately reflect the parties' agreement. The court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding that, in the absence of a factual record from which to determine whether the modified divorce judgment accurately reflects the parties' agreement, the court's findings that the parties reached a full agreement were clearly erroneous. View "Bahn v. Small" 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)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv), holding that the standard of proof in termination of parental rights cases is constitutionally adequate.On appeal, Mother argued that parental unfitness be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that the statutory standard burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence was constitutionally insufficient. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) there is no reason to overturn precedent holding that the standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally sufficient in termination of parental rights cases; and (2) the court acted within its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights. View "In re Child of Shayla S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child, holding that the court did not clearly err in finding both parents unfit and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of the parents' rights was in the best interest of the child.Specifically, the Court held (1) the court did not Cleary err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father was unable or unwilling to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs; and (2) even if placing the child in an adoptive home may be challenging, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of both parents' rights was in the best interest of the child. View "In re Child of Carl D." 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. 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) and (b)(i)-(ii), holding that the district court's judgment was not an abuse of discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings of parental unfitness; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court's determination that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest; (3) the court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the child's best interest; and (4) the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mother's motions for a new trial or to reopen the evidence. View "In re Child of Erica H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court's finding that termination was in the child's best interest, and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights instead of ordering a permanency guardianship.Specifically, the Court held (1) Mother's due process rights were not violated when the court commenced the termination hearing , as scheduled, in Mother's absence; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a permanency guardianship rather than a termination of Mother's parental rights; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings. View "In re Children of Danielle F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that competent record evidence supported the court's determinations and that the court did not err by terminating Father's parental rights.After a termination hearing, the district court determined that Father was parentally unfit and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's determinations were predicated on supported factual findings and the application of the requisite standard of proof, that Father was parentally unfit, and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Children of Anthony N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the record supported the court's findings and that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests.Following a hearing, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights based on its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs, that Mother failed to make a good faith effort at reunification, and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the district court's judgment. View "In re Children of Melissa S." on Justia Law