Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to two of his children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii),(iv), holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in determining that the termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence provided the district court with ample support for the court’s conclusion that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests; and (2) the district court’s determination that the circumstances of this case warranted termination of Father’s parental rights while preserving Mother’s parental rights was not erroneous. View "In re Children of Christopher S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed two separate judgments of the probate court granting the petitions of half-sisters’ maternal grandmother to terminate the fathers’ parental rights as part of the proceeding through which the grandmother sought to adopt the children, holding that the fathers were not deprived of due process and equal protection of the law when the court denied the fathers’ motions for an order requiring the provision of rehabilitation and reunification services.The judicial termination proceedings in these consolidated cases did not involve the Department of Health and Human Services. The fathers argued that they were constitutionally entitled to the services that are ordinarily provided in a title 22 child protection action after a court has found abuse or neglect or has placed a child in foster care under the supervision of the Department. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the probate court (1) did not violate the fathers’ constitutional rights by denying the fathers’ motions for orders of rehabilitation and reunification services; and (2) did not err in determining that each father’s parental rights should be terminated. View "In re Adoption of Riahleigh M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the probate court denying the petition filed by Michael Zani and Peter Zani to be appointed co-guardians of Patricia S., their mother and an incapacitated adult, and instead appointing Karin Beaster and Nancy Carter as co-guardians, holding that Beaster and Carter had not fulfilled the pretrial filing requirements of Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 5-303(a).The probate court appointed Beaster and Carter as co-guardians of Patricia even though Beaster and Carter had not filed petitions to be appointed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the superior court erred by appointing Beaster and Carter when they had not complied with the requirements applicable to a guardianship petition under section 5-303(a). View "In re Patricia S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the probate court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 18-A, 9-204(a)-(b) and Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(2), (B)(2)(a) and (B)(2)(b)(ii), holding that the probate court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the probate court’s findings that Mother and Father were parentally unfit and that termination of their parental rights was in the best interest of the child; and (2) Father failed to demonstrate, and the record did not reveal, any error in the probate court’s handling of objections that were raised to the maternal grandmother’s testimony. View "In re Adoption of Ivan M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the children of Mother and Father were in jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035, holding that the court’s findings were supported by competent record evidence.After the Department of Health and Human Services filed a child protection petition against Mother and Father as to their three minor children the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were in circumstances of jeopardy to their health and welfare. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court’s factual findings were supported by competent record evidence. View "In re Children of Travis G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4050-4056, holding that the record supported the court’s findings that at least one ground of parental unfitness had been proved and that termination of Parents’ rights was in the children’s best interests.On appeal, Father advanced no arguments, but Mother argued that the district court erred in taking judicial notice of prior proceedings. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court independently assessed all facts presented; and (2) the court’s determination that termination of parental rights was established by clear and convincing evidence was supported by the record. View "In re Children of Bradford W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to four of her children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv), holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) Mother’s counsel at the termination hearing did not provide ineffective assistance in failing to seek recusal and failing to move for further findings; (2) the district court’s findings were supported by the record; and (3) the district court did not err in making a credibility determination concerning one of Mother’s witnesses. View "In re Children of Crystal G." 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 court did not err in determining that Father remained unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for the child within a time that is reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and the court id not err or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.Based on testimony presented at the termination hearing and other competent evidence in the record, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below. View "In re Child of Jonathan D." on Justia Law

In this appeal from a family matter judgment after a judicial review hearing in a child protection matter the Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal from the child protection matter and affirmed the judgment in the family matter, holding that the issue raised in the child protection matter was not properly raised and that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the family matter.The district court dismissed the child protection matter, opened a family matter, and entered an order in the family matter that gave sole parental rights and responsibilities to Mother and denied rights of contact to Father. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) because the entry of the family matter judgment was appealable only pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 104, Father improperly raised his issue in a Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4006, 4038 appeal; (2) when a party appeals from a family matter judgment entered as a result of an unappealable judicial review hearing in a child protection matter, the right to counsel does not extend to the appeal from the family matter judgment; and (3) the court did not err in denying Father’s motion to testify by video link or in denying Father’s request for rights of contact with the child. View "In re Child of Nicholas G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Christopher McMahon’s motion for contempt and granting Tanya McMahon’s motion to modify the parties’ divorce judgment and the court’s order denying Christopher’s motion to alter or amend the judgment and granting in part Christopher’s motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the district court.Specifically, the Court held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion by (1) denying Christopher’s motion for contempt; (2) failing to implement a partial mediation agreement; (3) denying a deviation from the child support guidelines; and (4) imposing conditions on Christopher’s visitation rights. View "McMahon v. McMahon" on Justia Law