Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of divorce, defaulting Husband, holding that the district court did not err in determining that service by publication was adequate.When Wife filed a complaint for protection from abuse against Husband, Husband fled to Florida in order to evade service of process. Two months later, Wife prepared a complaint for divorce from Husband, but neither she nor the sheriff’s office was able to find him to serve him with the divorce complaint. The district court granted a motion for service of the divorce complaint by alternate means, allowing Wife to effect service by publishing notice of the complaint in the Lewiston Sun Journal. When Father failed to appear at the divorce hearing, the district court entered a judgment of divorce defaulting Husband. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Me. R. Civ. P. 4 did not impose a requirement that a copy of the order granting alternate service be personally delivered to Husband; and (2) the district court’s decision not to require Wife to send an email to Husband’s possible email address or notify Husband’s attorney of the order for service by publication did not result in a failure of due process. View "Schulz v. Doeppe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of divorce, defaulting Husband, holding that the district court did not err in determining that service by publication was adequate.When Wife filed a complaint for protection from abuse against Husband, Husband fled to Florida in order to evade service of process. Two months later, Wife prepared a complaint for divorce from Husband, but neither she nor the sheriff’s office was able to find him to serve him with the divorce complaint. The district court granted a motion for service of the divorce complaint by alternate means, allowing Wife to effect service by publishing notice of the complaint in the Lewiston Sun Journal. When Father failed to appear at the divorce hearing, the district court entered a judgment of divorce defaulting Husband. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Me. R. Civ. P. 4 did not impose a requirement that a copy of the order granting alternate service be personally delivered to Husband; and (2) the district court’s decision not to require Wife to send an email to Husband’s possible email address or notify Husband’s attorney of the order for service by publication did not result in a failure of due process. View "Schulz v. Doeppe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court denying Father’s Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment after the court granted Mother’s motion to modify a parental rights and responsibilities order regarding the parties’ son. On appeal, Father argued that the court erred in denying his motion because (1) after another state assumed jurisdiction over the child custody matter, Maine necessarily lost jurisdiction over that matter; and (2) the court erred by not allowing him to present facts and legal arguments to the court before a decision on jurisdiction was made. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) Maine maintained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the child custody matter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1746(1); and (2) the court acted within the confines of section 1740(2), and because Father on two occasions had already presented facts and legal arguments regarding jurisdiction, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father a third opportunity to address the matter. View "Fitzpatrick v. McCrary" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court denying Father’s Me. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment after the court granted Mother’s motion to modify a parental rights and responsibilities order regarding the parties’ son. On appeal, Father argued that the court erred in denying his motion because (1) after another state assumed jurisdiction over the child custody matter, Maine necessarily lost jurisdiction over that matter; and (2) the court erred by not allowing him to present facts and legal arguments to the court before a decision on jurisdiction was made. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) Maine maintained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the child custody matter pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1746(1); and (2) the court acted within the confines of section 1740(2), and because Father on two occasions had already presented facts and legal arguments regarding jurisdiction, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father a third opportunity to address the matter. View "Fitzpatrick v. McCrary" 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)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (iv), holding that the evidence supported the district court’s finding of parental unfitness. Specifically, the Court held that the district court’s findings that Father was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs and failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with him were based on competent evidence in the record. Therefore, the court did not err in its determination of unfitness. View "In re Child of Daniel Q." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(b) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The Court held (1) the district court did not err by invoking the “rebuttable presumption” contained in Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1-A)(A), (B)(8) in its unfitness analysis because the evidence in its entirety supported a finding of unfitness; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Gustavus E." 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)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (ii), (iv). The Court held (1) the district court’s findings were sufficient to support the court’s conclusion that Father was unable to protect his child from jeopardy, was unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs, and did not make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. View "In re Child of Nuradin A." on Justia Law

The district court did not err in granting Plaintiff’s petition for a protection from abuse order against Defendant, her boyfriend.After a hearing, the district court found that Defendant had abused Plaintiff and issued a two-year protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err or disregard substantial evidence in its ultimate finding that Defendant abused Plaintiff; and (2) the district court’s application of the best evidence rule, Me. R. Evid. 1002, was not in error when it required Defendant to allow Plaintiff to review either printed copies or the electronic versions of emails and texts prior to his cross-examination of her. View "Deah v. Cuthbert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii). The Court also affirmed the judgment of the district court finding jeopardy to the parents’ daughter’s health and welfare pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035. Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence in the record supported the court’s findings of parental unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination of the parents’ parental rights was in their son’s best interest; and (2) the court’s jeopardy findings as to the daughter were supported by competent evidence in the record. View "In re Children of Alice R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). The Court held (1) the district court’s finding that Father was incapable of alleviating jeopardy or providing adequate care for the child in a time reasonably calculated to meet her needs was supported by competent evidence in the record; (2) the district court’s other specific findings of fact were supported by competent evidence in the record; and (3) the district court did not err in its unfitness determination or abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Eric K." on Justia Law