In Re M.M, 86 A.3d 622

This appeal arises from a petition filed by three private citizens (Pickering, Gilman, Noyes) under 22 M.R.S. § 4032(1)(C) seeking a child protection order for M.M., alleging the father placed the child in jeopardy and requesting custody be given to the mother; a preliminary protection order was denied.
The underlying family litigation included a divorce judgment awarding shared parental rights, later modified (2011) to give the father primary physical residence, and again modified (2012) to award the father sole parental rights and bar the mother from contact until she obtained treatment.
Petitioners’ clarified allegations included two specific assaults by the father (July 2010 with a box; March 2011 with a metal pan), continuous denial of the mother’s visitation, verbal (and inferred physical) abuse of the father’s second wife, and inconsistent DHHS investigations.
The father and DHHS moved to dismiss; the district court granted dismissal on grounds including lack of standing, res judicata as to the assault allegations, and failure to state a claim under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for the remaining allegations.
The Supreme Judicial Court held that Petitioners had standing under § 4032(1)(C), but affirmed dismissal: assault claims were claim-precluded by the 2012 final judgment, and the visitation, spouse-abuse, and DHHS-investigation allegations failed to state a jeopardy claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to bring a §4032(1)(C) petition	Three private citizens may invoke §4032(1)(C) to protect a child from jeopardy; they had been involved in the matter and sought protection, not custody	Allowing non‑relatives to bring petitions impermissibly intrudes on parent’s due‑process right to custody	Statute constitutional as applied; Petitioners had standing to pursue a child protection petition
Res judicata as to alleged assaults (2010, 2011)	Petitioners argued assaults supported new petition	Father argued mother (and thus petitioners in privity) litigated these allegations and lost in 2012 final judgment	Assault allegations were claim‑precluded by the 2012 final judgment; barred by res judicata
Failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)) — visitation denial	Denial of visitation shows jeopardy to child	Visitation denial may support contempt but does not constitute "jeopardy" as defined by statute	Dismissed: visitation denial does not state a statutory jeopardy claim
Failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)) — verbal abuse of spouse and DHHS investigation failures	Verbal abuse of spouse and inconsistent DHHS responses indicate household danger and child jeopardy	Allegations unrelated to harm to M.M.; at most reflect past, unsubstantiated concerns	Dismissed: allegations do not allege jeopardy to the child; some fall within res judicata time frame

Sparks v. Sparks, 65 A.3d 1223 (Me. 2013) (explains strict‑scrutiny framework when parental liberty interest is implicated and recognizes State’s compelling interest in protecting children)
Rideout v. Riendeau, 761 A.2d 291 (Me. 2000) (standing analysis in cases implicating parental custody rights)
Richardson v. Winthrop Sch. Dep’t, 983 A.2d 400 (Me. 2009) (treating material allegations as admitted on motion to dismiss)
Guardianship of Jewel M., 2 A.3d 301 (Me. 2010) (caution on applying res judicata in domestic relations but setting claim‑preclusion framework)
Ewing v. Me. Dist. Court, 964 A.2d 644 (Me. 2009) (standing is threshold jurisdictional issue that must be resolved before merits)
Savage v. Me. Pretrial Servs., Inc., 58 A.3d 1138 (Me. 2013) (standards of review on dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))