Jeanette Daggett v. Dustin A. Sternick
109 A.3d 1137
Me.2015Background
- Parents Jeanette Daggett and Dustin Sternick share a daughter born March 1, 2010; Daggett sought primary residence and to relocate the child to Florida.
- Daggett has advanced education in clinical/counseling psychology, a pending Florida job offer, and family support and housing there.
- Sternick worked part-time for low wages, volunteered at a friend’s marijuana farm, and used/possessed large quantities of medical marijuana in the home.
- Evidence showed frequent visitors obtaining/using marijuana at Sternick’s home and the child’s exposure to marijuana (odor, marijuana products accessible in kitchen/freezer).
- Record evidence included missed/ delayed medical care for the child (double ear infection, ruptured eardrum), recordings suggesting poor supervision, and findings that Sternick’s parenting capacity was impaired by marijuana use.
- District Court awarded primary residence to Daggett as in the child’s best interest; Sternick appealed arguing the court violated protections of the Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act (MMUMA) and improperly relied on lawful marijuana use.
Issues
| Issue | Sternick's Argument | Daggett's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court infringed MMUMA protections by making findings about Sternick’s marijuana use | Court should not consider mere lawful medical marijuana use when allocating parental rights | Court could consider the effects of Sternick’s marijuana use where it showed abuse, exposure, or impairment | MMUMA does not bar consideration of marijuana use when that use affects the child’s best interest; lawful use alone is not dispositive |
| Whether awarding primary residence to Daggett was an abuse of discretion based on lawful marijuana use | Award was based solely on Sternick’s lawful marijuana use, so it violated §2423‑E(3) | Award was based on Sternick’s impairment, neglect, and child’s exposure—not solely lawful use | No abuse of discretion; factual findings showed impairment/neglect that justified awarding primary residence to Daggett |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. Christianson, 43 A.3d 978 (Me. 2012) (standard for reviewing district court factual findings supporting custody decisions)
- Grant v. Hamm, 48 A.3d 789 (Me. 2012) (review standards for parental rights and responsibilities determinations)
- Hatch v. Anderson, 4 A.3d 904 (Me. 2010) (statutory interpretation—begin with plain meaning)
- Sullivan v. Doe, 100 A.3d 171 (Me. 2014) (best interest of the child is paramount in parent‑child contact disputes)
- State v. Butt, 656 A.2d 1225 (Me. 1995) (legislative intent governs statutory interpretation)