Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his children, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion by finding that Father was unfit and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children.Specifically, the Court held (1) the court's findings were supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) the court did not err in determining that Father was unable or unwilling to protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Children of Anthony L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a)-(b)(i), (iv), holding that the district court did not commit clear error in terminating Mother's parental rights.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence admitted at the termination hearing was sufficient to support the court's unfitness finding; (2) the court's best interest findings did not constitute factual errors or an abuse of discretion because, contrary to Mother's argument, the court's findings were not predicated solely on an assumption that the grandmother would adopt the children; and (3) the procedural interaction between the probate court and the district court did not deprive Mother of due process. View "In re Children of Bethmarie R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the district court did not err its findings of unfitness and its best interest determination.The Department of Health and Human Services petitioned for the termination of Mother's parental rights to both of her children. The court subsequently terminated Mother's rights to the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court's factual findings of unfitness and best interest were not clearly erroneous; and (2) the court's ultimate determination of best interest was not an abuse of discretion. View "In re Children of Christine A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(b)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child.After a hearing, the court found that Father was parentally unfit because he was neither able to protect the child from jeopardy nor able to take responsibility for the child and would be unable to do ether within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs. The court also determined that termination was in the child's best interest. Father appealed, challenging only the court's best interest determination. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination Father's parental rights was necessary so that the child could be placed in a stable and permanent setting. View "In re Child of Peter T." 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), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's determination of parental unfitness and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the child.Based on the testimony presented at the termination hearing and other evidence the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy or to take responsibility for child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs, and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was competent evidence in the record to support the court's findings. View "In re Child of Megan D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the post-judgment orders following a divorce judgment entered in the district court finding Edward Harshman in contempt, holding that the facts of this case supported the contempt order.The district court's orders of contempt found Edward in contempt of the parties' divorce judgment after he failed to obtain a $500,000 life insurance policy that would name Sheila Harshman, his former wife, as the owner and beneficiary, and acted in bad faith allowing his existing life insurance policy that listed Sheila as the beneficiary to lapse. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of contempt, holding that Edward failed to produce evidence of his inability to comply with insurance provision of the divorce judgment. View "Harshman v. Harshman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Susan McGarvey’s motion to modify a divorce judgment between her and John McGarvey and Susan’s motion to reconsider that denial, holding that there was no error in the court’s judgment.On appeal, Susan argued that the district court erred by determining that there were no substantial changes in circumstances sufficient to justify a modification of the divorce judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) because Susan failed to provide the Court a transcript of the hearing on her motion to modify, it must be assumed that the court’s findings were supported by competent evidence in the record; and (2) based on those findings, the court did not err in denying Susan’s motion to modify. View "McGarvey v. McGarvey" 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), holding that the court did not err in finding that Mother was unfit to parent and that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate Mother’s parental rights.Specifically, the Court held (1) all of the district court’s factual findings had evidentiary support; (2) the district court did not err in determining that, despite Mother’s efforts, she was unable to protect her child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time that was reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; and (3) the court did not err in concluding that the termination of mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Amanda H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her two children, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings of parental unfitness.Based on its findings, the lower court found grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (iv). The court further determined that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting all three grounds of parental unfitness. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings as to all three grounds of parental unfitness. View "In re Children of Tiyonie R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of divorce entered by the district court on Donald Durkin’s complaint and the court’s denial of Joyce Durkin’s motion for amended or clarified findings and for reconsideration, holding that the court’s judgment was unclear.At issue was whether district court erred by concluding that it lacked the authority to award spousal support from nonmarital assets and by declining to award nominal spousal support. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the district court did have the authority to consider a spouse’s nonmarital assets in determining the appropriateness of spousal support; (2) the district court did have the authority to secure any spousal support through a lien on nonmarital property; but (3) the district court’s judgment was unclear as to whether the court believed it had such authority. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded for clarification of the court’s analysis and conclusions and for reconsideration as deemed necessary, holding that from the court’s language in its order, the court apparently erred in its legal analysis regarding its ability to consider nonmarital property in determining whether to award spousal support - and in its ability to fashion a remedy to enforce any such award. View "Durkin v. Durkin" on Justia Law