Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court divorcing Husband and Wife, holding that the court did not err by adopting Wife’s proposed judgment and did not err in its classification of marital property and the determination of Husband’s income.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court’s order clearly reflected its independent judgment and was fully supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) the court’s allocation of the parties’ marital assets was without error; and (3) the trial court’s determination of Husband’s income was supported by sufficient, competent record evidence. View "Cashman v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to two of their children, holding, among other things, that the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s determination that Mother was parentally unfit within the meaning of Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(ii)-(iv).Specifically, the Court held (1) even if the evidence shows that the Department did not fulfill its statutory duty to develop a proper rehabilitation and reunification plan, such a failure is not dispositive of a termination petition; (2) the district court’s determination of Father’s parental unfitness with regard to his two children was supported by competent evidence in the record; and (3) the court’s determination of Mother’s parental unfitness was supported by competent record evidence. View "In re Children of Corey W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the district court denying the Passamaquoddy Tribe’s motion to intervene in a child protective action involving nonmember children following the removal of the children from the custody of their mother, who resided in the Tribe’s territory, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the Department of Health and Human Services’ removal of the children from the Tribe’s territory was not impermissible state regulation of an “internal tribal matter.”Following the Department’s removal of the children from their mother’s care, the Tribe filed a motion to intervene, alleging that Me. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) provided for intervention of right because the removal of the children from the Tribe’s territory constituted impermissible state regulation of an internal tribal matter. The court denied the motion to intervene. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the removal of the children did not constitute impermissible state regulation of an internal tribal matter; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Tribe’s motion for permissive intervention. View "In re Children of Mary J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellants’ and the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s motions to transfer jurisdiction of this child protection matter to the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901-1963, holding that the district court properly found that there was good cause within the meaning of ICWA not to transfer the matter to the Tribal Court.There was no dispute in this case that these were child custody proceedings to which ICWA applied, the children were Indian children within the meaning of ICWA, and the children did not reside on the reservation in South Dakota. Here, the district court focused on the difficulty in the presentation of evidence that would occur if jurisdiction were transferred from Maine to South Dakota. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court’s denial of the motion to transfer was supported by its findings and conclusions and that the court’s analysis of the geographical challenges posed by a potential transfer was supported by ample evidence, contained no legal errors, and did not represent an abuse of discretion. View "In re Children of Shirley T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments entered by the probate court terminating Father’s parental rights to his two children in anticipation of an adoption, holding that the court did not err in its use of statements made by one of the children during an in camera interview and that there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding of parental unfitness as to both children.The probate court terminated Father’s parental rights 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). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) any errors made by the probate court with regard to statements given by S.S. during the in camera interview were harmless; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s findings; and (3) Father was not deprived of a fair trial or treated unjustly as a result of the trial court’s erroneous sequence of its fact-finding. View "In re Adoption of Shayleigh S." on Justia Law