Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the divorce between Todd Mathiesen and Karie Ann Michaud entered by the district court, holding that the court did not err in denying Mathiesen's motion for recusal.The trial court issued a divorce judgment that, among other things, awarded primary physical residence of the parties' child to Michaud. On appeal, Mathiesen's sole argument was that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for recusal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the judge's decision not to recuse himself was proper. View "Mathiesen v. Michaud" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the probate court interpreting a divorce judgment and ruling that certain real property once held in joint tenancy by Karen Hatch and Kendall Hatch, was an assets of Kendall's estate, holding that the probate court's decision represented a reasonable interpretation of the underlying divorce judgment.Karen appealed the probate court's judgment, arguing that the court erred in holding that the joint tenancy was severed and that Kendell was the sole owner of the property at issue at the time of his death. Rather, Karen contended, the property was still held in joint tenancy at the time of Kendall's death and that she became sole owner by right of survivorship when he died. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the probate court did not err in interpreting the divorce judgment and subsequent orders of the district court in concluding that title to the property vested in Kendall before his death and that the joint tenancy was severed. View "In re Estate of Kendall W. Hatch Jr." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's post-judgment motions for a new trial and for relief from judgment following the court's entry of a judgment terminating her parental rights to her children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motions for a new trial and for relief from judgment.The court concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services had met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unwilling or unable to protect her children from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs and that Mother was unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that termination of Mother's parental rights was not premature and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's post-judgment motions for relief from judgment and for a new trial. View "In re Children of Jessica J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the district court finding that Father's two children were in circumstances of jeopardy but vacated in part the orders granting two parental rights motions to modify, holding that the court erred, in part, in granting the motions to modify.This consolidated appeal concerned proceedings to determine parental rights and responsibilities and child protection proceedings involving Father, the two children, and the biological mother of each child. The district court entered judgments that (1) found both children were in circumstances of jeopardy; (2) granted a motion to modify an order governing parental rights and responsibilities between Father and the mother of the older child; and (3) granted a motion to modify an amended divorce judgment between Father and the mother of the younger child. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed in part the motions to modify, holding (1) the court did not clearly err in determining that each child was in circumstances of jeopardy; and (2) as to the motions to modify, the court erred by requiring that future contact between Father and each child be dependent upon the recommendation of the child's therapist because this transferred the court's responsibility for determining the best interest of the children. View "In re Children of Richard E." 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), holding that there was sufficient record evidence to support the court's findings of parental unfitness and best interest by clear and convincing evidence.The court terminated Mother's parental rights to the child on the grounds that Mother was unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unable to take responsibility for the child and that these circumstances were unlikely to change in a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs. The court further found that termination of Mother's rights was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the court's determination that the termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest. View "In re Child of Amber D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court finding that Mother's child was in circumstances of jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4002(6), 4035(2), and ordering the child remain in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's determination that the child was in jeopardy.On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child was in circumstances of jeopardy. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, taken together, the court's supported factual findings were sufficient to support its determination that the child would be "subject to a threat of serious harm" if he were returned to the custody of Mother. View "In re Child of Whitney M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that competent evidence in the record supported the court's finding that Mother was parentally unfit and that the court did not err in finding that the Department of Health and Human Services had made reasonable efforts to reunify and rehabilitate Mother's family.Based on the evidence before it, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother met two of the four definitions of parental unfitness. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights; and (2) the court did not err in finding that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify and rehabilitate the family. View "In re Child of Amelia C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Mother and Father's child was in jeopardy pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in applying the presumption in Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4035(2-A) regarding Father's prior convictions for sex offenses against children, nor did it impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the parents in violation of their due process rights; and (2) the district court's ultimate determination, by a preponderance of the evidence, of jeopardy was not clearly erroneous. View "In re Child of Ryan F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Mother's child was in circumstances of jeopardy to the child's health or welfare and ordering that the child remain in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, holding that Mother's due process right was not violated and that the court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous.Specifically, the Court held (1) in the proceedings below, there was no error, obvious or otherwise, that deprived Mother of a fair trial or resulted in a substantial injustice; and (2) contrary to Mother's argument, the district court's supported findings established as more likely than not that returning the child to Mother's custody would cause the child serious harm or the threat of serious harm. View "In re Child of Brooke B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights to their child, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's findings of the parents' parental unfitness; (2) the district court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion in determining that termination of the parents' parental rights was in the child's best interest; (3) the rehabilitation and reunification efforts made by the Department of Health and Human Services were sufficient; and (4) the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting out-of-court statements made by the parties' child. View "In re Child of Nicholas W." on Justia Law