In re Children of Bethmarie R., 189 A.3d 252

Mother (Bethmarie R.) previously lost custody; maternal grandmother was guardian since 2010 and children lived with her most of their lives. Mother absconded with the children in 2013 and was later criminally convicted for criminal restraint.
Probate Court initially terminated the guardianship in August 2017 but, after new allegations (biting, failure to intervene during assault, ripping bandages) and a reopen hearing, denied mother’s petition to terminate the guardianship in October 2017 and ordered supervised visits and transitional services, finding no evidence of jeopardy.
While Probate proceedings were pending, the Department sought a preliminary child-protection order in District Court; the District Court consolidated matters and delayed hearing until after Probate acted.
District Court held a combined summary preliminary and jeopardy hearing in November 2017, concluded the children were in jeopardy, and ordered the Department to cease reunification; permanency plan was termination and adoption by the grandmother. The District Court relied in part on the same incident allegations the Probate Court had rejected.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) res judicata/issue preclusion barred the Department from relitigating facts decided by the Probate Court, and (2) her due process rights were violated by the second proceeding. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata / collateral estoppel barred the Department from relitigating jeopardy after Probate Court found no jeopardy	Mother: Probate Court’s final findings preclude relitigation; Department is bound or in privity with grandmother	Department: It was not a party to probate; not in privity with grandmother; statutory duties give distinct interests allowing relitigation in child-protection forum	Court: No res judicata; Department and grandmother not in privity, different legal interests and duties, so Department could litigate jeopardy in District Court
Whether mother’s due process rights were violated by a second proceeding on similar facts	Mother: Second proceeding deprived her of meaningful process and was duplicative after Probate ruling	Department: Mother received notice, counsel, opportunity to present/cross-examine, and an impartial decisionmaker; Mathews v. Eldridge balance satisfied	Court: No due process violation; mother had required procedural protections and government’s interest in child safety and permanency justified proceedings

Guardianship of Jewel M., 2 A.3d 301 (Me. 2010) (res judicata principles applied cautiously in domestic relations/child welfare matters)
In re M.M., 86 A.3d 622 (Me. 2014) (privity requirement for preclusion doctrines)
In re M.P., 126 A.3d 718 (Me. 2015) (applying Mathews v. Eldridge factors to due process in child protection proceedings)
In re Nicholas S., 140 A.3d 1226 (Me. 2016) (standard for jeopardy finding in child protection cases)
Pushard v. Bank of Am., 175 A.3d 103 (Me. 2017) (overview of res judicata and its components)
Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989 A.2d 733 (Me. 2010) (nonmutual collateral estoppel and privity discussion)
In re Robert S., 966 A.2d 894 (Me. 2009) (procedural protections required in child protection hearings)
Rideout v. Riendeau, 761 A.2d 291 (Me. 2000) (parental liberty interest in custody decisions)
Pitts v. Moore, 90 A.3d 1169 (Me. 2014) (state’s compelling interest to intervene when child harm is likely)
State v. Jones, 55 A.3d 432 (Me. 2012) (de novo review of constitutional questions)
Guardianship of Stevens, 86 A.3d 1197 (Me. 2014) (guardianship standards and fitness determinations)