Guardianship of Alisha K. Golodner
2017 ME 31
| Me. | 2017Background
- In March 2011 the York County Probate Court appointed Gail Golodner as full, permanent guardian of her stepgranddaughter Alisha. 18-A M.R.S. § 5-204.
- Daniel Golodner filed a petition in June 2014 to terminate the guardianship and later a Rule 60(b) motion; the court denied termination after a two-day hearing in January 2016, finding Daniel unfit and that termination was not in Alisha’s best interest.
- During the hearing Daniel left threatening voicemail messages for the guardian ad litem (GAL); the Probate Court ordered Daniel to pay GAL fees as a "necessary consequence" for his threatening conduct but did not specify amount, rate, or legal basis for the sanction.
- The Birkbecks filed a separate petition to be appointed standby/alternate guardians; the Probate Court did not rule on that petition.
- Gail died on February 13, 2017, which by operation of law terminated her guardianship, and Daniel appealed the denial of termination and the GAL-fee sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal over denial of petition to terminate guardianship remains justiciable after guardian's death | Daniel sought reversal of Probate Court’s denial and restoration of his custodial status | Gail (through counsel) argued appeal should be heard on the merits or remanded to address alternate guardianship petition | Dismissed as moot because guardian's death terminated the guardianship by law; exceptions to mootness not shown |
| Whether the Probate Court properly ordered Daniel to pay GAL fees as sanction | Daniel argued sanction was improper and that he was entitled to due process and specificity | Probate Court justified sanction as consequence of Daniel’s threatening conduct | Not moot; vacated and remanded because order lacked specificity about amount, hours, rate, and legal basis and did not afford procedural protections |
| Whether any stay arising from the appeal should remain in effect | Daniel implicitly sought continuation to resolve custody/status issues | Gail’s counsel urged merits or remand | Any appellate stay vacated; case file returned to Probate Court and court ordered to promptly address Alisha’s care |
| Whether Daniel’s post-judgment Rule 60(b) motion was properly considered | Daniel requested relief from the guardianship judgment | Respondent pointed to timing and procedural limits on Rule 60(b) | Court denied Daniel’s motion; appellate court denied his motion for relief and questioned why late Rule 60(b) motion had been entertained |
Key Cases Cited
- Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 136 A.3d 714 (Me. 2016) (defines mootness and exceptions to mootness doctrine)
- Guardianship of Chamberlain, 118 A.3d 229 (Me. 2015) (guardian’s death terminates guardianship by operation of law)
- Woolridge v. Woolridge, 940 A.2d 1082 (Me. 2008) (standard of review for fee awards based on misconduct is abuse of discretion)
- Cimenian v. Lumb, 951 A.2d 817 (Me. 2008) (courts have inherent authority to sanction abuses of the litigation process)
- Bailey v. Dep’t of Marine Res., 124 A.3d 1125 (Me. 2015) (discussion of mootness exceptions and appellate review)
- Kirkpatrick v. City of Bangor, 728 A.2d 1268 (Me. 1999) (due process protections required when sanctions, including contempt, are imposed)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions requires an appropriate hearing)
- In re Walter R., 850 A.2d 346 (Me. 2004) (discusses mootness in guardianship and related proceedings)