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 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

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