Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Clear and convincing evidence supported the district court’s finding that Mother was unfit as a parent, and the district court acted within its discretion in determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.The district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), and (b)(i)-(ii). On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the lower court’s findings of parental unfitness and argued that the court was required to order additional time for her to attempt to rehabilitate herself and reunify with the child. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the court’s findings were supported by competent evidence in the record, and the court properly exercised its discretion in this case. View "In re Child of Amber L." on Justia Law

A Department of Health and Human Services hearing officer erred in concluding that a child support ordered entered in James Fagone’s divorce from Kristin Fagone authorized the Department’s Division of Support Enforcement and Recovery to adjust the amount of child support owed, without a modification of the court order, upon the oldest of the parties’ three children reaching age eighteen.The superior court vacated the hearing officer’s decision, concluding that the child support order entered upon the Fagones’ divorce was not self-adjusting. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court correctly concluded that the order required the payment of support in the amount specified unless and until ordered otherwise and that the hearing officer erred in calculating a reduced amount based on the terms of the existing child support order. View "Department of Health and Human Services v. Fagone" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court clarified the circumstances in which a court order that anticipates a change in child support upon the occurrence of future events will be self-effectuating.In 2007, Todd Wood and Shelly Higgins divorced. The judgment required Todd Wood to pay child support, and the child support order stated that the child support obligation shall continue for each child until that child reaches the age of eighteen. In 2009, the oldest child turned eighteen, but Wood continued to pay child support in the amount ordered until 2015 when he filed motions to modify and for determination of overpayment. The magistrate entered modified child support orders but concluded that Wood could not recover any overpayment for child support paid prior to his service of the motion to modify. Wood appealed, arguing that he was entitled to recoup an overpayment of child support. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court’s order requiring Todd to pay child support did not contain a self-effectuating provision immediately reducing Wood’s child support payments upon his oldest child reaching age eighteen; and (2) neither administrative collateral estoppel nor administrative equitable estoppel was properly raised. View "Higgins v. Wood" 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) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i),(iv), holding that the evidence supported the court’s findings and discretionary determinations.On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s judgment, specifically challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ efforts to rehabilitate her and reunify her with her child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the record (1) supported the court’s finding of at least one ground of unfitness as to Mother, and (2) showed that, despite the Department’s efforts at rehabilitating and reunifying the family, Mother was still unsuccessful at reunifying with her child. View "In re Child of Lindsay D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding John McNutt (Dan) in contempt of the parties’ earlier divorce judgment and increasing his spousal support obligation to Janice McNutt.On appeal, Dan argued that the court erred by (1) finding that he was now able to pay increased spousal support and ordering a temporary increase of that support to $1,750 each month, and (2) not addressing an ambiguity in the divorce judgment and imposing a lien in Janice’s favor, which he alleged rendered him unable to purge his contempt. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) ample competent evidence in the record supported the court’s findings that Dan was in contempt of the property disposition provisions of the divorce judgment and that he received a substantial increase in income due to his disregard of the court’s order to sell or refinance two marital rental properties; and (2) the lien was consistent with the terms of the divorce judgment. View "McNutt v. McNutt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their two children and denying their motions to reopen the record and for relief from judgment.On appeal, Parents asserted that the district court erred by denying their motion to reopen the evidence and by denying their motion under Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court had no discretion to reopen the evidence as to certain testimony, and the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Parents’ motion to reopen to present evidence that Parents claimed was relevant to the issues of parental unfitness and the children’s best interests; and (2) the court did not err by determining that, at an earlier termination hearing, Mother was not prejudiced by her attorney’s ineffective representation and that Father’s counsel’s performance was not deficient in the first place. View "In re Children of Jeremy A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of domestic violence assault and violating a condition of release, holding that certain errors in the jury instructions constituted obvious error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing fully to instruct the jury on the State’s burden to disprove the statutory justifications Defendant produced in defense of the charges or on the consequences of the State’s failure to meet that burden. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed that the trial court’s instructions were deficient, holding that the errors in the jury instructions were highly prejudicial, tending to produce manifest injustice. View "State v. Villacci" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the district court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in determining that the termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest when the child was placed in a permanency guardianship with his paternal grandparents and Father’s parental rights were not terminated. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding unfitness and determining that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest, despite the establishment of a permanency guardianship and Father’s retention of his parental rights. View "In re Child of Emily K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Appellant did not have standing to pursue a claim for visitation rights with her grandchild pursuant to the Grandparents Visitation Act (GVA), Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1801-1805.Appellant, the grandmother of the child at issue, filed a petition to establish grandparents’ rights pursuant to the GVA, seeking specific rights of visitation and/or primary physical residence of the child. The district court concluded that Appellant had not established standing because she failed to make a prima facie showing of de facto parentage as required under the GVA to proceed on her petition. On appeal, Appellant argued, inter alia, that the court erred in finding that she did not have standing to proceed as a putative de facto parent. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not establish standing to proceed to a hearing on her petition pursuant to the GVA or the statutory requirements of a de facto parenthood claim. View "Lamkin v. Lamkin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their three children while also approving a permanency guardianship as a possible permanency plan.After Parents’ parental rights were terminated, they appealed. Parents did not contest the district court’s determination that they were unfit as the children’s parents but argued that the court erred by determining that termination was in the children’s best interests because the court also ordered a permanency plan that included either adoption or a permanency guardianship. In affirming, the Supreme Judicial Court held that, under the circumstances of this case, termination of Parents’ parental rights was not inconsistent with a permanency guardianship. View "In re Children of Nicole M." on Justia Law