Guardianship of Alisha K. Golodner
2017 ME 54
| Me. | 2017Background
- Alisha Golodner (born 2003) was placed in Maine in 2010 under a full, permanent guardianship granted to her stepmother, Gail Golodner, after an uncontested probate hearing; the original order did not specify ongoing parental contact.
- For several years Daniel (her father) had visits and phone contact; contact was cut off by Gail after a 2013 altercation, and Daniel filed in June 2014 to terminate the guardianship alleging alienation.
- A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed; an interim order imposed coordinated contact (including twice-weekly phone calls) and authorized recording of calls.
- A January 2016 hearing produced testimony from Daniel, Gail, the GAL, and Alisha; recordings and other evidence showed Daniel’s communications with Alisha included shouting, insults, threats, emotional abuse, and some physical aggression, causing fear and distress.
- The Probate Court denied Daniel’s petition, finding (1) Gail proved by clear and convincing evidence that Daniel is unfit to parent, and (2) Daniel failed to prove by a preponderance that termination was in Alisha’s best interest; the court imposed conditions to facilitate limited contact but ordered Daniel to pay GAL fees as a sanction for threatening the GAL.
- On appeal the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Daniel’s petition and the refusal to order transitional arrangements, but vacated and remanded the portion requiring Daniel to pay GAL fees because the sanction’s scope, basis, and procedural protections were unclear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Daniel) | Defendant's Argument (Gail) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Daniel is unfit | Daniel argued the record did not show he is currently unfit and that guardianship should terminate | Gail argued evidence shows Daniel is unfit due to abusive, threatening, and emotionally harmful conduct toward Alisha | Court: Affirmed — findings supported; even under clear-and-convincing standard Daniel is unfit |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest | Daniel argued termination/return to his custody would be in Alisha’s best interest | Gail argued termination would harm Alisha and current guardianship is necessary | Court: Affirmed — Daniel did not prove termination is in Alisha’s best interest by preponderance |
| Ordering transitional arrangements (increased visitation) | Daniel sought transitional arrangements to restore custody/contact gradually | Gail opposed, citing evidence Daniel is not capable of respectful communication and transition would harm child | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying transitions; court instead required guardian to encourage routine phone contact |
| Sanction requiring Daniel to pay GAL fees for threatening conduct | Daniel challenged fee order as unclear, procedurally defective, and overbroad | Gail (and court below) treated fees as consequence of Daniel’s threats and billed him for GAL time | Held: Vacated and remanded — order failed to specify amount, rate, hours, or legal basis and did not afford required procedural safeguards; court must reconsider with proper notice/hearing if sanction imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in raising their children)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts have inherent authority to sanction abuses of the litigation process, with procedural protections)
- Woolridge v. Woolridge, 940 A.2d 1082 (Me. 2008) (appellate review of fee awards for party misconduct uses abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Cimenian v. Lumb, 951 A.2d 817 (Me. 2008) (recognizes court’s inherent authority to sanction litigation abuse)
- Guardianship of Reena D., 35 A.3d 509 (N.H. 2011) (discusses clear-and-convincing proof required to continue a guardianship over a parent’s objection)