91 A.3d 590
Me.2014Background
- Andrea L. Brown (grandmother) petitioned the District Court for de facto parental rights to her grandchildren, T.E. and K.E.; the court denied standing and Brown appealed.
- Children lived primarily with Brown since November 2007 after their mother, Kelly Paradis, asked Brown to care for them due to domestic abuse and substance problems.
- The biological father, James Eaton, had been awarded primary residence in 2008; since 2011 the children resided with Brown and Eaton supported Brown’s petition.
- At the standing hearing, the court found Brown had acted as primary caretaker and had a parent-like relationship, but concluded Brown failed to show parental acknowledgment required under Philbrook and therefore lacked standing.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration under the Pitts v. Moore standards, instructing application of the clarified de facto-parent test and permitting additional evidence at the trial court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown made a prima facie showing of de facto parent status to establish standing | Brown argued she had been the children’s primary caretaker in a permanent, committed parental role since 2007 | Paradis (and trial court) emphasized lack of parental acknowledgment and that legal parents retained primary rights | Court vacated and remanded: lower court must reassess standing using Pitts standard (clear and convincing proof of permanent, committed parental role and exceptional circumstances) |
| Proper legal standard and burden of proof for de facto parent petitions | Brown relied on existing de facto-parent doctrine (Philbrook) and factual record | State/parents relied on parents’ fundamental rights; trial court applied Philbrook’s focus on acknowledgement | Appellate court clarified Pitts governs: petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence both (1) a permanent, unequivocal, committed, responsible parental role and (2) exceptional circumstances justifying interference with legal parent’s rights |
| Procedural adequacy of the hearing on standing | Brown contended the existing hearing record sufficed under Pitts standard when applied | Trial court treated the hearing as a standing determination but applied Philbrook factors and denied standing | Court remanded to permit reconsideration of the existing record and any further evidence the trial court deems appropriate under Pitts procedure |
| Whether parental fundamental rights bar de facto parent claims absent showing of harm | Brown argued the facts warranted inquiry into de facto status despite parental rights | Paradis argued parental rights should prevail absent clear waiver or acknowledgment | Appellate plurality required strict scrutiny; concurrence urged use of Pitts dissent’s approach on remand; overall remand for application of appropriate standard to balance parental rights and third‑party interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitts v. Moore, 90 A.3d 1169 (Me. 2014) (plurality) (establishes de facto parent test: clear and convincing proof of a permanent parental role and exceptional circumstances)
- Philbrook v. Theriault, 957 A.2d 74 (Me. 2008) (explains de facto-parent doctrine and standing threshold)
- Davis v. Anderson, 953 A.2d 1166 (Me. 2008) (parents’ fundamental right to direct upbringing and associations)
- Rideout v. Riendeau, 761 A.2d 291 (Me. 2000) (discusses third‑party parental claims and parental rights)
- Stitham v. Henderson, 768 A.2d 598 (Me. 2001) (earlier discussion of de facto parent concepts)