In Re Alivia B., 2010 ME 112

Alivia B., age seven, lived with her mother in April 2008 when DHHS responded to domestic violence and other issues, leading to a jeopardy order against the mother and Alivia being placed with the father.
The mother completed residential treatment, therapy, and anger/substance programs, and moved with her new fiancé and Alivia’s half-sister to his home in 2009.
Alivia expressed a preference to live as a family with her mother, sister, and fiancé, and to reside in the mother’s home.
The father, who is sex offender registered, was uncooperative in facilitating contact between Alivia and the mother, though Alivia stated she felt safe with him in a separate room.
On January 16, 2010, the court ordered Alivia’s primary residence to transfer to the mother by January 30, 2010, while keeping jeopardy findings and requiring monitoring and contact arrangements.
The father appealed, challenging the award of primary residential care to the mother despite the jeopardy finding and challenging the best-interest determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a jeopardy finding against one parent bar awarding primary residence to that parent?	Father argues jeopardy against mother prevents primary residence award to mother.	Mother argues the statute permits award if it protects the child and serves best interests, even with jeopardy.	Jeopardy does not categorically preclude a primary-residence award.
Does jeopardy finding affect the best-interest determination for primary residence with the other parent?	Father contends jeopardy requires disregard of best interest in favor of safety concerns.	Mother contends the order can protect from jeopardy while serving best interests.	trial court properly weighed best interests despite jeopardy finding.
Was the court’s best-interest determination supported by competent evidence and proper discretion?	Father asserts insufficient evidence to justify primary residence with mother given jeopardy.	Mother argues evidence shows stability, sobriety, and ability to provide continuity.	Yes; the court's findings were supported and within its discretion.

In re Jacob C., 2009 ME 10 (Me. 2009) (parens for final judgments in Title 22 proceedings treated like Title 19-A orders; de novo review of questions of law)
In re Thomas H., 2005 ME 123 (Me. 2005) (trial court's best-interest determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion with substantial deference)
In re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159 (Me. 2002) (court accorded substantial deference to trial court's assessment of best interests)