Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

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)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv), holding that competent evidence supported the court's finding that Mother was parentally unfit and the court's conclusion that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest.On appeal, Mother argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's findings of at least one ground of parental unfitness and that termination was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was competent evidence in the record to support the finding of parental unfitness; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest. View "In re Child of Angela S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint for protection from harassment against Gladys Cassese, holding that Me. Rev. Stat. 5, 4654(1) does not always preclude the court from adjudicating a protection from harassment complaint without first holding a hearing.On appeal, Appellant argued that the court was required to hold a hearing before adjudicating his complaint and that, alternatively, the court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) a court is not prohibited in all circumstances from dismissing a protection from harassment complaint without first holding a hearing; and (2) the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Anctil v. Cassese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the district court determining that Mother's four children were in circumstances of jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035(2), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the children were in jeopardy.After a hearing, the district court determined that the children were in circumstances of jeopardy due to the neglect and infliction of serious injury upon one of the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in crediting the testimony of one of the expert witnesses of the Department of Health and Human Services over the testimony of Mother's competing expert witness; and (2) the court's findings were sufficient for the court to find that the children would be in circumstances of jeopardy if they were returned to Mother's care. View "In re Children of Alecia M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court finding that Mother presents jeopardy to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035, holding that the court miscalculated the date on which the child was considered to have entered foster care.In the jeopardy order, the court found that the child entered foster care on July 4, 2019, a finding to which Mother disagreed. Mother appealed, challenging the date the child was considered to have entered foster care. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the jeopardy order containing that finding, holding that September 2, 2019 is the date on which the child was considered to have entered foster care within the meaning of Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4038-B(1)(B), 4041(1-A), 4052(2-A)(A)(1). View "In re Child of Jillian T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Marla Bridges's motion to correct a clerical error in the parties' divorce judgment and denying Christopher Caouette's motion to terminate spousal support, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, Caouette argued that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that the inclusion of the phrase "or remarries" in a provision of the divorce judgment was a clerical error and by denying his motion to terminate spousal support based substantively on Bridges's remarriage. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) although the court erred in identifying its decision as a clerical correct, it was clear that the court was interpreting the original divorce judgment and in so doing was acting to grant Bridges's motion to enforce; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caouette's motion to terminate spousal support due to Bridges's remarriage based on its findings regarding the financial situations of both parties. View "Bridges v. Caouette" on Justia Law