Guardianship of Hailey M.
140 A.3d 478
| Me. | 2016Background
- Mother initially sought guardianship for paternal grandparents in Sept 2014 for educational reasons, withdrew that petition in Nov 2014; grandparents later filed in Dec 2014 after child threatened to run away and then moved in with grandparents in Jan 2015.
- Father consented to the guardianship; mother opposed. Trial occurred July 9, 2015; witnesses included the child (then 15), both parents, grandmother, and a clinician.
- Probate court found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother had created an at least temporarily intolerable (abusive) living situation: the child self‑harmed, ran away, and her symptoms (anxiety, depression) worsened in the mother’s care.
- Court found the grandparents qualified, that the guardianship was necessary and in the child’s best interest, and ordered the grandparents appointed as full guardians; it instructed grandparents not to obstruct contact if the child desired it.
- Mother moved for additional findings and argued the evidence did not show unfitness and that, at minimum, a limited guardianship or transitional plan was required; the court issued brief findings and retained the full guardianship. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Grandparents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court misapprehended mother’s testimony (credibility) | Mother: court wrongly found her testimony inconsistent about how many times child ran away, affecting credibility | Grandparents: testimony ambiguity was for the factfinder to resolve | Court: no clear error; record ambiguous and trial court best positioned to weigh credibility |
| Whether appointing full guardianship violated mother’s substantive due process rights | Mother: evidence insufficient to show parental unfitness; if intrusion allowed, it must be narrowly tailored (limited guardianship or transitional plan) | Grandparents: evidence showed mother’s conduct created risk of harm; full guardianship was necessary to provide stable, safe home | Court: findings support unfitness and best interest; infringement narrowly tailored under circumstances; full guardianship not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether court should have ordered a limited guardianship instead of full | Mother: less intrusive means (school change) could achieve goals | Grandparents: child’s severe symptoms and need for stable home justified full guardianship | Court: no abuse of discretion; full guardianship appropriate given risk and child’s age/severity |
| Whether court should have ordered transitional arrangements back to mother | Mother: transitional plan would allow reconciliation and remediation | Grandparents: transition already occurred to grandparents; not appropriate given risks | Court: probate court has discretion; refusal to order transition not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Guardianship of Jewel M., 2 A.3d 301 (Me. 2010) (standards for parental unfitness and guardianship; Jewel II)
- Guardianship of Jewel M., 989 A.2d 726 (Me. 2010) (fact‑finder misapprehension and credibility review; Jewel I)
- Sparks v. Sparks, 65 A.3d 1223 (Me. 2013) (narrow tailoring requirement when parental rights infringed)
- Doe I v. Williams, 61 A.3d 718 (Me. 2013) (substantive due process framework for parental rights)
- Guardianship of Johnson, 98 A.3d 1023 (Me. 2014) (clear error standard for guardianship findings)
- Pitts v. Moore, 90 A.3d 1169 (Me. 2014) (state’s compelling interest in child welfare justifies intrusion when parent unfit)
- Guardianship of Jeremiah T., 976 A.2d 955 (Me. 2009) (parental liberty interest in directing child’s upbringing)