17 A.3d 136
Me.2011Background
- Justan A. Smith, developmentally disabled, is the child of Robert E. Smith and Candy Batson, born August 23, 1988.
- Candy petitioned for guardianship and conservatorship in 2009; the court appointed temporary co-guardians Robert and Candy to effect shared custody.
- In June 2009, Robert intentionally prevented three planned visits, leading to subsequent contempt proceedings.
- December 2009 and April 2010 hearings led to a judgment appointing Candy and Christine Smith as co-guardians with Christine as conservator, and contempt against Robert for visitation violations.
- The judgment required at least $200 per month of Justan’s SSI benefits deposited into a three-signature bank account (Justan, Christine, Candy).
- Robert appealed after the court granted findings, raised issues about admissibility of a GAL’s testimony/reports and the SSI deposit order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the court's findings of fact sufficient? | Robert contends findings are insufficient. | Smith argues the court did not adequately support its decision. | Findings are sufficient to support the judgment. |
| Was GAL testimony/reports admissible? | Robert claims GAL evidence was improperly admitted absent statutory appointment. | Defense asserts GAL reports were admissible and otherwise supported by other evidence. | Admission deemed harmless error; judgment sustained. |
| Does the SSI deposit order conflict with federal law governing representative payees preemption? | Robert argues state order conflicts with 42 U.S.C. § 405(j) and related regs. | Candy/Christine contend no federal preemption issue; order valid. | Federal law preempts the SSI deposit provision; vacate that portion and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarvis v. Jarvis, 2003 ME 53 (Me. 2003) (sufficiency of findings review under M.R. Civ. P. 52)
- Estate of Bragdon, 2005 ME 85 (Me. 2005) (appointment of guardians; best interests standard)
- White v. Nason, 2005 ME 73 (Me. 2005) (contempt findings and standard of review)
- Robards v. Cotton Mill Assocs., 677 A.2d 540 (Me. 1996) (federal preemption analysis and supremacy clause)
- Me. Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. Me. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 581 A.2d 799 (Me. 1990) (federal preemption principle)
- Verizon New Eng., Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2005 ME 64 (Me. 2005) (preemption framework for state regulation)