Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his two children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv). On appeal, Father argued that the guardian ad litem failed to satisfy his statutory obligations to conduct an in-person interview with Father and to notify Father’s attorney that Father was imprisoned before the cease reunification order went into effect. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) Father’s argument regarding the notification of incarceration failed for several reasons; and (2) the court’s findings that Father was unfit and that termination was in the children’s best interests was not in error or an abuse of discretion. View "In re Aurora M." 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)-(iii). On appeal, Father argued that the court impermissibly relied on his incarceration in finding parental unfitness and erred in its best interest determination. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) Father’s arguments regarding his imprisonment failed in several respects; and (2) the court did not err or abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Asanah S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Father and Mother to their children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s finding of parental unfitness, and Father’s counsel filed a brief indicating that there were no arguable issues with merit in this appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the district court did not err when it determined that Mother and Father are unfit pursuant to section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b); and (2) the district court did not err or abuse its discretion by determining that termination was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Meena H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his three children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii). On appeal, Father argued that the evidence did not support the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its discretionary determination that termination was in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the district court’s findings were supported by competent evidence in the record and that the court did not err in its determination of unfitness or in determining that termination of Father’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Zarianna C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating parents’ parental rights to Bentlee G. pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) and finding jeopardy as to Brenton G. pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035(2). The court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its determination that termination of both parents’ rights was in Bentlee’s best interest; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding of jeopardy as to Brenton; and (3) to the extent that Mother argued that the court erred in terminating her parental rights to Bentlee because the jeopardy order was defective, her contention was unpersuasive. View "In re Bentlee G." 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)-(ii). On appeal, Mother argued that the evidence was insufficient to support both the court’s finding of parental unfitness and its finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. In affirming, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not err in its finding of unfitness as to Mother; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Addilyn R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i),(ii) and, with respect to Father, section 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(iv). The court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s findings of unfitness; (2) Father was not deprived of due process when the court denied his motion to continue a hearing on the ground that he was experiencing withdrawal from Suboxone; and (3) the court did not err in admitting evidence of Mother’s drug test results. View "In re Arturo G." 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), (1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv). The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) there was competent evidence to support the district court’s findings that Mother failed to take responsibility for her children and was unwilling and unable to protect the children from jeopardy, and that both of these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children’s needs; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion when it declined to continue the termination hearing for testimony that was cumulative and not likely to affect the judgment. View "In re Alexavier G." 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) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii). Mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s finding of parental unfitness and the determination that termination was in the best interest of the children. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s findings of parental unfitness; and (2) the district court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in its finding and conclusion that termination of Mother’s parental rights, with a permanency plan of adoption, was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Zianna G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents’ parental rights to their child. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the Department of Health and Human Services satisfied its obligation to provide necessary services to Mother; (2) the district court did not err in finding that Mother was unable to protect the child from jeopardy or take responsibility for him within a time that was reasonably calculated to meet his needs; and (3) the district court did not err in determining that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Dominyk T." on Justia Law