Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court granting Susan Colucci's complaint for divorce, holding that the court did not have an adequate evidentiary basis from which it could make the findings necessary for it to set aside the parties' dog to the correct party.On appeal, Stephen Colucci argued that the district court erred in awarding the parties' dog, Louise, to Susan because the dog was his nonmarital property. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that because the parties did not present any evidence of who, whether Susan or Stephen, acquired Louise five years before the marriage, the district court should have reopened the record for the parties to submit additional evidence regarding the ownership of Louise prior to entering a final judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Colucci v. Colucci" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court granting Pamela Dobbins's motion to enforce the terms of a divorce judgment and a later court order acceptable for processing (COAP) federal retirement benefits, holding that the court lacked the authority to order Mark Dobbins to retire.In the COAP, the court stated that Mark was required to retire at age sixty-two. When Mark turned sixty-two years old, Pamela filed a motion to enforce the divorce judgment and COAP. Mark filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that the divorce judgment and COAP were ambiguous and that the court was not authorized to require him to retire at a specific age. The district court denied relief, finding that the divorce judgment and the COAP were enforceable as written. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the court lacked the authority to order Mark to retire at a certain age. View "Dobbins v. Dobbins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing, for lack of standing, Appellant's petition to establish de facto parentage of his stepson, holding that Appellant was entitled to a hearing to determine his standing.Appellant filed a petition to be adjudicated the child's de facto parent after the mother died unexpectedly. With the petition, Appellant included an affidavit alleging facts to support the existence of a de facto parent relationship with the child. The court dismissed the petition for lack of standing, concluding that Appellant could not establish a necessary element of standing even if the facts in his affidavit were true. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant's assertions, if believed, could have led to a find that he had standing; (2) Respondent's affidavit generated disputed material facts that must be resolved to determine Appellant's standing; and (3) the court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve those factual disputes. View "Libby v. Estabrook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father and Mother's parental rights to their five children, holding that the district court's findings were sufficient to support the court's ultimate determination that the parents were unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them in a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs.On appeal, the parents argued that the efforts of the Department of Health and Human Services to rehabilitate the parents and reunify them with the children were insufficient and that the court erred in determining that the termination of the parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) competent evidence support the court's finding that the Department's efforts were reasonable under the circumstances of this case; and (2) the court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion when it determined that the termination of the parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re Children of Jacob S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the record supported the court's findings that Mother was an unfit parent and that termination of her parental rights was in the child's best interest.After a hearing, the court entered a judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, finding that Mother was an unfit parent and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court's supported findings were sufficient to support its determinations. View "In re Child of Shai F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that there were sufficient findings and evidence to support the court's determination that termination was in the child's best interest.After a hearing, the court terminated Mother's parental rights to the child on the grounds that she was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, contrary to Mother's contention, the court adequately considered the child's best interest when it terminated Mother's parental rights. View "In re Child of Stacy H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the court's findings of parental unfitness and that termination was in the best interests of the children.After a hearing, the court found that both parents were unfit pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv) and that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in finding Mother and Father unfit; and (2) the court did not err in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re Child of Shem A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the court did not err in finding that Father voluntarily and knowingly consented to the termination of his parental rights.The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. At the termination hearing, Father informed the court that he intended to consent to the termination. After a colloquy with the court, Father confirmed that he understood the effects of consenting to the termination of his parental rights. The court found that Father's consent was knowing and voluntary and entered an order terminating Father's parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not clearly err in finding that Father knowingly and voluntarily consented to the termination of his parental rights. View "In re Child of Ronald P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the court's findings of parental unfitness and best interest were supported by sufficient evidence.The district court found that Mother was an unfit parent on two statutory grounds - that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and that she had been unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court's unfitness findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination was in the child's best interest. View "In re Child of Jessica C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Mother's child was in circumstances of jeopardy, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's finding that the child was in jeopardy.The Department of Health and Human Services sought a child protection order for the child alleging that the child was at risk of serious harm due to Mother's volatility and her lack of safe and stable housing. After a hearing, the court determined that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in finding that returning the child to Mother's custody would subject the child to a threat of serious harm. View "In re Child of Jasmine B." on Justia Law