Guardianship of Gabriel I.K. Johnson
2014 ME 104
| Me. | 2014Background
- Paternal grandparents petitioned for guardianship of minor Gabriel in Aug 2012; multiple temporary guardianship orders followed from Sept 2012–Mar–Aug 2013, some by agreement and some without recorded hearings.
- The probate matter transferred from Androscoggin to Oxford County; several hearings were unrecorded and the mother was denied permission to record the contested July 2013 hearing at her own expense.
- On Aug 21, 2013, the Probate Court (with the father’s consent) found the mother unfit, the child’s living situation with the mother temporarily intolerable, and appointed the paternal grandparents full guardians effective July 31, 2013.
- The mother appealed only the probate guardianship judgment, arguing denial of recording and insufficient findings/evidence. She later submitted a proposed statement of the evidence under M.R. App. P. 5(d); the court adopted a final statement.
- Separately, the District Court entered (by parental stipulation) an order in Sept 2013 awarding primary residence to the father and visitation to the mother; that judgment was not appealed and was not reconciled with the probate judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother should have been permitted to record the guardianship hearing at her own expense | Johnson: denial violated her procedural rights and the court should have allowed recording | Probate Court/grandparents: no rule or constitutional provision required permitting the mother to record; notice requirements not met | Court: no statutory or constitutional violation; preferable to allow party recordings but denial not reversible here |
| Sufficiency of findings and evidence to appoint guardians over mother’s objection | Johnson: findings were inadequate and evidence insufficient to show mother’s unfitness or "temporarily intolerable" situation | Grandparents: clear and convincing evidence supported findings of mother’s mental-health problems, refusal of treatment, abusive relationships, child’s fear and improved welfare with grandparents | Court: findings met statutory requirements (18-A M.R.S. §§5-204,5-207); supported by competent evidence; affirmed |
| Use and sequencing of serial temporary guardianship orders | Johnson: (implicit) procedural concerns about multiple temporary orders and lack of recorded hearings | Court/grandparents: temporary orders provided interim relief; some by agreement | Court: noted statutory limits on serial temporary guardianships and that temporary orders are final judgments; raised procedural concern though parties did not challenge them |
| Coordination between Probate and District Courts | Johnson: lack of coordination led to conflicting orders regarding child’s custody | Other parties: no coordinated process occurred | Court: advised that courts should coordinate in related family matters; noted collaboration permitted by judicial conduct rules |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dustin C., 952 A.2d 993 (Me. 2008) (due process safeguards and appellate procedure in guardianship context)
- In re Amberley D., 775 A.2d 1158 (Me. 2001) (no constitutional right to appeal; procedural safeguards in juvenile/guardianship proceedings)
- Guardianship of Jewel M. (Jewel I), 989 A.2d 726 (Me. 2010) (standard for "temporarily intolerable" living situation requires proof of parental unfitness)
- Guardianship of Jewel M. (Jewel II), 2 A.3d 301 (Me. 2010) (continuing exposition of standards for guardianship over parental objection)
- Murphy v. Maddaus, 789 A.2d 1281 (Me. 2002) (temporary guardianship can be a final judgment)
- Gregory v. City of Calais, 771 A.2d 383 (Me. 2001) (standards for enlargement of time and trial-court discretion)