284 A.3d 93
Me.2022Background
- Competing guardianship petitions were filed by maternal grandmother and by the maternal grandfather and his wife; after a three-day consolidated hearing the guardianship court appointed the grandfather and his wife as guardians.
- Guardianship court found the grandfather’s home to be the more stable option but ordered continued contact with the grandmother (minimum weekly visits) for a six-month transition and left longer-term contact unresolved.
- The grandmother filed separate complaints for determination of de facto parentage for both children before her appeal of the guardianship judgments concluded.
- The grandfather and his wife moved to dismiss the de facto parentage complaints, asserting issue preclusion because the guardianship court already decided the children’s best interests.
- The District Court dismissed the complaints with prejudice on issue-preclusion grounds; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded, holding the best-interests inquiries are not identical and directing the trial court to first assess the grandmother’s standing under the de facto-parent statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion bars grandmother’s de facto-parentage suits because the children’s best interests were already decided in the guardianship proceedings | Gardner: guardianship best-interest determination differs from the statutory best-interest inquiry for de facto parentage; guardianship court even ordered continuing contact | Greenlaw: same best-interest question was litigated; Gardner had fair opportunity and incentive to raise de facto parentage issues earlier (claim-splitting) | Issue preclusion does not categorically bar the de facto-parentage actions because the required best-interest inquiries are not identical |
| Whether Gardner has standing / prima facie showing to proceed under the de facto-parent statute (19-A M.R.S. §1891) | Gardner: should be allowed to establish prima facie evidence and, if met, proceed to plenary hearing | Greenlaw: argues Gardner previously had opportunity to litigate and should be estopped; may challenge standing | Court remanded for the trial court to decide standing under §1891; if standing shown, proceed under statutory process |
| Scope of relief — whether guardianship ruling precludes parental rights/responsibilities that arise from de facto-parent adjudication | Gardner: de facto-parent status can confer parental rights/responsibilities and define a continuing role beyond guardianship visitation | Greenlaw: guardianship award of primary residence and decision-making authority should control; de facto relief would conflict | Guardianship orders are not coterminous with de facto-parent remedies; however, issue preclusion bars relitigation of primary residence and decision-making authority already awarded to the guardians; de facto adjudication, if allowed, is constrained by the guardianship judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Children of Bethmarie R., 189 A.3d 252 (Me. 2018) (caution in applying res judicata in domestic relations because child-best-interest circumstances evolve)
- Guardianship of Jewel M., 2 A.3d 301 (Me. 2010) (issue preclusion requires identical issue necessarily determined and prior opportunity to litigate)
- Portland Water Dist. v. Town of Standish, 940 A.2d 1097 (Me. 2008) (standard of review for issue-preclusion determinations)
- Marin v. Marin, 797 A.2d 1265 (Me. 2002) (res judicata did not bar subsequent parental-rights adjudication though it was subject to prior guardianship order)
- C.E.W. v. D.E.W., 845 A.2d 1146 (Me. 2004) (de facto parent adjudication requires determination of parental rights under best-interest statute)
- Stitham v. Henderson, 768 A.2d 598 (Me. 2001) (de facto-parent status permits court to define continuing role if in child’s best interest)