Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Father lived the child and her mother, outside of Maine, until 2008, when the child was about six months old. After that time, he maintained regular contact with the child, who resided primarily in New York, but was never her primary caregiver. In 2016 Mother moved to Maine with the child. Father, who is incarcerated in Massachusetts, did not oppose the move. While he was incarcerated the child asked a neighbor for help and the Maine Department of Health and Human Services commenced a child protection proceeding. Father made no effort to take responsibility. The Department obtained a preliminary protection order, 22 M.R.S. 4032-4036, and placed the child in foster care after hospitalization for psychiatric care. Father was served with notice and provided with appointed counsel, who moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction because Father is not a Maine resident, has never traveled to Maine,and otherwise lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Maine. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the court’s rejection of that motion. The court was not required to have jurisdiction over Father to have authority to issue a jeopardy order to protect the child. View "In re Emma B." on Justia Law

Evelyn and Elijah, twins, were born to parents who had previously been found guilty of manslaughter. The twins went from the hospital into foster care. The district court later terminated both parents’ parental rights to the twins. The parents appealed and moved for relief from the judgment of termination and later moved for relief from the court’s initial finding of jeopardy, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court concluded that trial counsel had been ineffective at the jeopardy stage and vacated the termination order. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the court’s judgment granting the parents’ motion for relief as it affected the original jeopardy determination and remanded, holding that the district court erred in addressing the parents’ untimely raised ineffective assistance of counsel allegations, in ordering further reunification efforts, and in declining to adjudicate the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the termination proceeding. View "In re Evelyn A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii). Specifically, the court held (1) the district court’s supported factual findings were sufficient for the court to have found at least one ground of parental unfitness; (2) the district court adequately explained how the deficits of the parents rendered each parent unable to meet the individual needs of each child; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interest. View "In re Myra B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). The court held (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. View "In re Joseph V." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment entered in the business and consumer docket partially denying Timothy Harper’s motion to reconsider and amend a previously-entered divorce judgment distributing his and Sheryl Harper’s assets. The court held (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Timothy committed economic misconduct resulting in the diminution of the martial estate by approximately $800,000; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to award Sheryl a portion of her attorney fees or in the court’s instructing a previously-appointed referee to oversee distribution of the parties’ assets. View "Harper v. Harper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their child pursuant to 22 Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2). The court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s determinations that the parents failed to ameliorate the issues of substance abuse, unhealthy relationships, and violence that resulted in the removal of the child from their care, and thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the parents were unfit; and (2) the court’s discretionary determination that termination was in the child’s best interest was not error or an abuse of discretion. View "In re Bradyn B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their minor child. After a hearing, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that the parents were unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time calculated to meet the child’s needs. The court further found that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the findings of parental unfitness were supported but he evidence and that the court did not err in determining that termination of the parents’ parental rights will serve the child’s best interest. View "In re Ryder C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child. Contrary to Mother’s contentions, the court held (1) Mother was not deprived of due process because the district court afforded her sufficient notice of the termination hearing before terminating her parental rights and did not place undue weight not he earlier termination of Mother’s rights to another child; and (2) the court’s findings were sufficient as a matter of law, and the court’s judgment was the “result of the application of independent judicial thought to the process of making fact-findings and conclusions.” View "In re Zoey H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her two minor children. On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s findings that the children could not wait for permanency and that Mother failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify. Mother also challenged the court’s determination that termination of her parental rights - not the creation of a permanency guardianship - was in the best interest of her children. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the evidence supported the court’s findings and discretionary determinations. View "In re Haylie W." on Justia Law

The district court terminated father’s parental rights, 22 M.R.S. 4055(1)(B)(2), finding, by clear and convincing evidence that he is unfit; that termination of his parental rights was in the children’s best interest; and that the permanency plan for the children would be adoption. The mother of the boys was previously found to have abandoned them. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, finding that the evidence supported finding that father is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs; is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for them within that timeframe; and failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children. The court noted father’s incarceration until at least July 2017, the testimony of mental health experts that the children “are very damaged, ” father’s history of substance abuse, including while he was incarcerated, which delayed his release, and his inconsistent communication with the children. The court noted extensive testimony about the need for permanency and stability for the children. View "In re: Mathew H." on Justia Law