Judy Sparks v. Brant Sparks
2013 ME 41
| Me. | 2013Background
- Judy Sparks and Brant Sparks, married in 2009 and separated about 1.5 years later, with Brant’s son living with Judy and her children.
- Judy sought protection from abuse for herself, two biological children, and Brant’s son, and sought guardianship of Brant’s son.
- Brant admitted abuse incl. assault on his son’s mother and molestation of the sister; Brant’s son testified to physical abuse and threats.
- Court granted protection to Judy and three others but denied Judy temporary parental rights for Brant’s son; Judy then obtained full guardianship in Probate Court.
- Judy appealed the denial of temporary parental rights; Probate guardianship later provided similar rights to Judy as sought in the protection proceeding.
- The issue on appeal was whether a stepparent’s status as a “person responsible for the child” allows temporary parental rights under the protection from abuse statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is moot and otherwise reviewable | Sparks argues mootness exception applies; collateral consequences/public interest. | Sparks argues moot; guardianship rendered appeal moot. | Public interest exception; appeal permissible despite mootness. |
| Whether nonparents may receive temporary parental rights | Sparks contends statute §4005(1) and §4007(1)(G) permit nonparents. | Sparks contends statute limits to legal parents. | Statute permits nonparents who are responsible for the child. |
| Whether awarding rights to a nonparent violates substantive due process | Assignment of rights to nonparent implicates parental liberty; strict scrutiny required. | State interest supports protection/temporary rights; may be narrowly tailored. | Statute passes strict scrutiny as narrowly tailored to protect the child. |
| Whether procedural due process protections were satisfied | Due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard. | Father had notice and opportunity at hearing; process adequate. | Notice and hearing satisfied; no procedural due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rideout v. Riendeau, 2000 ME 198, 761 A.2d 291 (Me. 2000) (compelling state interest in protecting children; strict scrutiny framework)
- Guardianship of Hughes, 1998 ME 186, 715 A.2d 919 (Me. 1998) (due process considerations in parental rights cases)
- In re Baby Duncan, 2009 ME 85, 976 A.2d 935 (Me. 2009) (standing and protection from abuse context for nonparents)
- In re Adoption of Tobias D., 2012 ME 45, 40 A.3d 990 (Me. 2012) (statutory interpretation; framework for parental rights post-abuse)
- Young v. Young, 2002 ME 167, 810 A.2d 418 (Me. 2002) (public interest mootness exception in stepparent rights context)