Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the interlocutory order of the district court allowing discovery in a protection from abuse action instituted by Pat Doe against Sam Roe and denying in part Doe's request for a discovery protective order pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 26(c), holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) while discovery is not prohibited in protection from abuse proceedings, when it is appropriate or necessary discovery must take place within strict parameters; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Roe had met his burden of showing that justice required discovery on thirteen of his interrogatories. View "Doe v. Roe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and remanded in part a judgment awarding parental rights and responsibilities entered in the district court as to Father's four children with Mother, holding that the court's judgment failed to include a required statement.The judgment in this case granted Mother sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary physical residence and denied Father rights of parent-child contact. The Supreme Court held (1) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father rights of parent-child contact, and any other error was harmless; and (2) the court's judgment failed to include a required statement governing parental access to records relating to the children. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the matter for the district court to amend the order. View "Mayberry v. Janosky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order entered by the district court dismissing Grandmother's petition for grandparent visitation for lack of standing, holding that there was no error.Grandmother petitioned against Mother and Father for visitation rights with the three children at issue in this case under the Grandparents and Great-grandparents Visitation Act, Me. Rev. Stat. 19-A, 1801-1806. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of standing, concluding that Grandmother did not prove that she had a sufficient existing relationship with the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court applied the correct standard of proof and that the record did not compel the court to make factual findings in Grandmother's favor. View "Fiske v. Fiske" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the divorce judgment entered by the district court in which the court adopted a referee's determination of the parties' child's primary residence and awarded Kristina Toland marital fees, holding that there was no error.The referee determined that Toland be awarded primary residence of the parties' minor child even if Toland relocates from Maine to Ohio and that Toland be awarded attorney fees. The district court adopted the referee's findings and recommendations. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the referee's findings were not clearly erroneous, nor was the determination based on these findings that the child's best interest would be served by living in Toland in Ohio while maintaining contact with Helge Reimann; and (2) the attorney-fee waiver provision in the parties' premarital agreement was unenforceable as applied to their litigation of parental rights. View "Riemann v. Toland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the divorce judgment entered by the district court that awarded shared parental rights and responsibilities concerning the parties' minor children, holding that the court impermissibly based its determination on hearsay evidence.At issue before the Supreme Court was the admission of testimonial evidence regarding Father's substantiation by the Department of Health and Human Services for sexual abuse of a child. On appeal, Father argued that the evidence regarding his substantiations was inadmissible hearsay and that the evidence prejudiced him. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding (1) the evidence regarding Father's substantiation was inadmissible hearsay; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "Needham v. Needham" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the probate court denying Mother's petition to modify or terminate an order of the superior court that transferred custody and guardianship of her child to the child's paternal grandmother and step-grandfather (together, Grandparents), holding that the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.A Connecticut superior court granted the motion filed by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families to transfer custody and guardianship of the child to Grandparents, who lived in New Hampshire. After Mother, the child, and Grandparents had all moved to Maine, Mother filed a petition in the Hancock County Probate Court seeking to register and modify or terminate the Connecticut order. The probate court denied Mother's petition. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order below, holding that the probate court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider or adjudicate Mother's petition to modify a guardianship established in Connecticut's equivalent of a child protection matter. View "In re Guardianship by Stacey M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgments entered by the district court establishing Dawn and James Ostrander as de facto parents of two biological children of Mark Martin and Marylou MacMahan, allocating parental rights and responsibilities and child support among the parties, and amending a divorce judgment between Martin and MacMahan, holding that the judgment amending the divorce judgment was in error.In an agreed-upon divorce judgment, the family court awarded shared parental rights of the twins of MacMahan and Martin to both parties. Later, the Ostranders, with whom the children were living, filed a complaint seeking a determination of de facto parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support. The court concluded that the Ostranders were the de facto parents of the children, decided that parental rights would be shared among the Ostranders, Martin, and MacMahan, and amended some of the divorce judgment's provisions. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment amending the divorce judgment and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in establishing de facto parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support; and (2) the judgment amending the divorce judgment was inconsistent with the judgment establishing parental rights and responsibilities. View "Martin v. MacMahan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their older child and the order finding that Mother's younger child was in jeopardy in her care, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in concluding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. 1901-1963, did not apply to either child, and Father challenged the termination of his parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in concluding that the ICWA did not apply to either of Mother's two children; and (2) the court did not err or abuse its discretion by finding at least one ground of parental unfitness and in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the older child. View "In re Children of Michelle C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court modifying the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in the divorce judgment in this case, holding that the court abused its discretion in declining to take judicial notice of certain information and failed adequately to explain certain modifications.On appeal, Appellant argued that the court erred in failing to take judicial notice of vaccine information available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website and failed to provide an explanation when it changed the contract schedule and allocated final decision-making authority on educational and medical matters to Appellee. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) the court abused its discretion in refusing to take judicial notice; and (2) the court inadequately explained its modifications to the contact schedule and the allocation of decision-making authority. View "Seymour v. Seymour" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the divorce judgment issued in the district court as to child support and affirmed in all other respects, holding that the district court erred in calculating child support.Lawrence Bloom and Annalee Bloom had two children when they divorced. The district court entered a divorce judgment on Annalee's complaint setting forth child support and spousal support and distributing the marital property. Lawrence appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) because the child support worksheets and orders contained multiple errors, the court's child support determination in the amended judgment must be corrected; and (2) the judgment is otherwise affirmed. View "Bloom v. Bloom" on Justia Law