*1
it;
good ground
belief there is
excessive. Before
fees were
attorney
interposed
delay.
motion,
and that
on the
was rendered
a decision
alia,
contending,
inter
appealed,
George
attorney’s signature pursuant
An
to Rule
11, however,
(1)
contempt
satisfy
procedur-
motion
did
does not
Bagley’s
that
al
66.
11 states
requirements
Civ.
Rule
Rule
requirements of M.R.
satisfy
“/e/ascept
specifically
when otherwise
(2)
66;
him
the court failed
find
P.
statute,
provided by
pleadings
rule or
need
contempt;
the court abused
accompanied by
or
not be verified
affida-
awarding attorney
fees.2
discretion
11(a) (emphasis
vit.” See M.R. Civ. P.
added).
plain language
As the
makes
II. DISCUSSION
clear,
instance,
Rule 66 is an
as contem-
explicitly
Rule
rule
plated
where a
review a court’s inter
“We
provides
pleading
that a
must be verified
Pro
Rules of Civil
the Maine
pretation
an accompanying
or submitted with
affida-
lan
plain
look to
de novo and
cedure
(“The
66(d)(2)(A)
vit. See M.R. Civ. P.
their
of the rules to determine
guage
party
motion of a
shall be under oath and
Gerrish, 2016
meaning.”
ME
Gauthier
give
forth the facts that
rise to the
set
¶
(quotation marks
cause 11(a), rely P. apparently to M.R. Civ.
ant following provision on the in Rule 11: specifically pro- LIAM O. Except when otherwise ADOPTION OF statute, pleadings or need vided rule No. Docket Kno-14-541. accompanied by or affida- not be verified of Maine. Supreme Judicial Court attorney or signature of an vit. The Sept. 2015. Argued: party representation constitutes a 3,May Decided: has read the signer signer motion; to- or the best of pleading information, knowledge, signer’s imposi- arguments regarding challenge George his removal as additional does personal representative. attorney fees or the tion and amount contempt alleged failure to make a court's court should we conclude that the 3. Because finding. con- proceeded on the motion for not have George’s tempt, we do not address *2 Gilbert, (orally), I. Elliott & Esq,
Sarah MacLean, Camden, LLP, for appellant mother. Mills, General, T. Attorney
Janet and Christopher Leighton, Atty, C. Asst. Gen. General, (oi’ally), Attorney Office of the Portland, appellee Department Health and Human Services. C.J„ SAUFLEY, Panel: and ALEXANDER, GORMAN, MEAD,, JABAR, HUMPHREY, JJ. and SAUFLEY, C.J., Majority: ALEXANDER', MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, JJ. ALEXANDER, Concurrence: J. JABAR, J. appeals The mother of Liam 1] judgment County
from a of the Knox Pro- J.) (Emery, denying peti- bate-Court her tions Liam’s father’s and to Liam. Because the fi- apparently considered nancial in determining Liam’s best interest, we vacate and remand Probate Court for a new determination of I, BACKGROUND September on was born 2011,- response In in- April parental rights- responsibilities petition mother, brought by the District Liam’s an agreed-upori judgment Court entered awarded sole right primary residence her, granted specific the father- contact Liam, based its conclusion- that mother rights with directed support. proof December met her burden protection obtained the- child’s best interest termi- against the father on own nate the abuse father’s did not behalf. mother’s “sparse, income was and she change with *3 rely upon through had state assistance son, required arrange the but programs,” TANF and .and grand- through paternal the striving “[the mother] herself expired order mother. children, and her but she still has insuffi- December 2013. so.” The court funds do cient found that “Liam would benefit from child January mother from his father and [the petitioned adopt Department] aggressively collect should rights of his parental biological father. them.” (2015). 9-204(a), §§ See 9-301 M.R.S. respond peti-
The father did Following decision, [¶ 7] the court’s Hu- tions. findings, mother moved for further and the (the mo- Department) man filed a Services supplemental findings court .issued P. tion to intervene Prob. M.R. determinations, Among other conclusions. 24, citing strong “the origi- the .court contrary stated its in protecting the interests of children finding nal that the mother has insufficient ensuring parents that both contribute to provide funds for the evi- “[n]o support of their to the children.” Over hearing, though) dence was offered objection, granted mother’s being about needs of Liam that sta- Department’s request for intervenor fully bymet his mother.” The.court also tus. following explaining made the statement a final Court held [¶ 4] understanding of Maine law: on Au- hearing petitions on the mother’s This does not current [c]ourt find within 24, 2014, 2014. On October gust that Maine ter- statutes Law envisions judgment denying court entered minating parental rights biologi- petitions. The court mother’s found cal no parent who has contact with father had not contact with had years three about and who taken years Liam for over three and had granted parental rights no and re- during no for his child those responsibility Court, sponsibilities by Maine District on this from Liam’s years. Based absence except responsibility' father, life, court found that support, presented by the facts in this as abandoned case, biologi- the other allow The court also found cal the child. “properly protected herself See timely appeal. 'this The mother filed [cjourt [ojrders.” her child (2015); M.R.App. P. 18-A'M.R.S. finding premised the mother’s tes- 2(b)(3). history, timony of the criminal father’s alcoholism, verbally threatening and his II. DISCUSSION behavior, including a threat to kill her pregnant she was with Liam. while the mother contends appeal, On by holding that erred Maine findings, court Notwithstanding these the termination petition statutes the court denied the mother’s do envision (Me.1996); T., see also In re Shane there is a rights when parental (Me.1988). also contends that 1296 & n. Title outstanding. A.2d She 9-204(a) by declining provides to terminate that “[a] 18-A M.R.S. the court erred parental rights petition benefits. state brought mother is in in Probate Court which properly adoption petition filed as in the court’s 9] We review petition A part adoption petition.” of that law de novo terpretation of Maine for termination of initiated two best interest court’s determination subject Probate Court is still factual find review the court’s fold: “we §§ provisions of 22 M.R.S. error, ings for but its ultimate clear 9-204(b). In de- See M.R.S. an abuse of discretion.” conclusion for ciding to terminate State, Sec’y Carrier rights, required to consider *4 ¶ M.B., 12, 1241; In re 60 A.3d child, interest of the the needs of “the best ¶46, 37, 65 A.3d child, physical ... the and the child’s Court has had ex- The Probate [¶ 10] 4055(2). § emotional needs.” 22 M.R.S. adoptions. over jurisdiction clusive Similarly, considering any adoption, when 1981, adoption were amended Maine’s laws required capac- court is to consider the the for termination of provide petitions to ity disposition adopting person of the may brought in Probate parental rights be “food, provide clothing and other mate- adoption process of part Court as the needs, education,” among rial other [and] standards of the child that the termination (2015). 9-308(b)(3) § 18-A factors. M.R.S. 1981, apply. P.L. protection statute would (codified 369, § 19 ch. at M.R.S. 533-A Here, petitioned 12] the 1993, 686, 3;§ ch. repealed by P.L. termi- adoption achieve the Smith, to Fam- Orphans Deirdre From M. rights. of parental nation the father’s Bights Matters ilies in Crisis: Parental to nor father neither consented contested Courts, L. Probate 68 Rev. Maine Me. of As adoption the mother’s time, (2016)). At the same moving the mother had the party, burden Legislature a basis added abandonment as proving by convincing of clear and evi- parent’s rights. of a P.L. parent father was not fit to dence that the 369, § 16. ch. and that it was in Liam’s inter- best unusual, est to terminate the father’s Although process given parent rights. The Probate Court found the fa- Legislature has when unfit he had right adopt her own even ther abandoned “unwilling parenthood questioned, is not so that child and was and unable conjunction adoption proceed provide child.” with Because find- challenged, ing the termination of of unfitness ing, she seek 18-A we consider the court erred when parent’s parental rights.1 (2015); see Humanit that it was in the Dept. failed find M.R.S. Sabattus, adopted Se 683 A.2d 172 best interest his mother rvs. process allowing parent brought by to Title 22. one the State Smith, strip her own child and the other Orphans Deirdre M. to Families From has been characterized as Rights in Crisis: Parental Matters in Maine protection” "private child and criti- form of Courts, 68 Me. L. Rev. provide it does not for the cized because (2016). safeguards present in child cases parental rights B. Best Interest and to have terminated. determination the best depends upon many interest a child A. Maine Statutes ' 4055(2). factors. See In this M.R.S. contends .that The mother case, gave significant weight the court erroneously concluded its best calculus State’s terminat Maine “do envision” statutes in collecting financial interest reimburse- parent’s rights when ment from the for state benefits hearing, support obligations. Prior Here, received’ child. the mother’s to dismiss moved abandoned his child and failed to arguing petition as a matter law support except child to file an “mother does have the from him as a State’s efforts collect action which would terminate result his son’s of TANF bene- are both while [her] fits. See M.R.S. subrogated Depart
assigned and judgment original court stated Although Services.” ment Human abandonment, [d]espite finding dismiss, motion to court denied not in best to termi- interest’] agree appeared with rights for nate [the father’s] the mother’s legal position when denied following reasons. in- [The mother’s] *5 so, court, petition. doing misinter sparse, rely come is and she statutes. A court consider preted Maine’s upon through TANF assistance [s]tate rights a programs. striving and other She whether, is in must consider children, support herself and her but she interest. the ter the child’s best Whether still has to do so. insufficient funds mination will affect the financial State’s added). However, (Emphasis sup- in its by of receipt occasioned the child’s interest plemental findings and conclusions .of fact is- not a the court TANF benefits factor opposite: of law “No court stated may making in consider determina presented hearing, evidence tion. though, of Liam about needs Here, the court concluded being by met his mother.” support ' Liam would from child benefit of these inconsistent [¶ 16] Because also payments from his father. The court findings, impossible to determine that, aban- despite concluded whether the court addressed the mother’s of donment for capacity the needs her there is an cannot be terminated because emphasized The court the State’s son. outstanding against of support ability recoup from the father appeared protecting court paid amounts the State to receive State’s reimburse- mother for TANF benefits. though court ment. Even articulated The court also noted that conclusion, legal this it ultimate- erroneous sepa- ly the case on the would benefit from decided basis It is im- [the rate interest. his father and De- issue—Liam’s best from aggressively collect possible partment] role this erroneous should know what If for legal played [p]etition in court’s ulti- them. this [t]ermination conclusion ... would be granted, father] best inter- were [the mate determination fi- any obligation relieved est. tion, has no financial interest the State support his son and neither nancially decision, all col- Department], money since would the mother’s [the nor petitioner, lected, collect future child any than a small administrative have - for fee, father] from [the to the mother is returned court erred. as a support of Liam. The analysis The court’s best conflates.Liam’s considering the. matter law financial interest with the State’s interest as factor in its determi- state, benefits financial recouping the termi- nation by Liam. Whether received financial inter-
nation affect the State’s will receipt of by the est occasioned III. CONCLUSION. is not factor TANF benefits the case We remand making that determina- consider in Court to Liam’s best consider not co- tion. interest does The State’s ability.to provide the mother’s terest and for two with Liam’s interest rea- incide son without consider needs the. sons. seeking reim ing the State’s interest First, if the father’s [¶ 18]. any received state benefits bursement terminated, State would were findings inconsistent by the mother. The recoup paid future benefits right to lose its ab and-the' and conclusions by pursuing fi of the mother’s sence evidence however, that loss support; to re impossible nancial condition make not affect Liam’s entitlement State would court’s view the determination Ti- state benefits. continuing adóption to prove that mother failed 4056(4) states that “[n]o fie M.R.S. best'interest. was in Liam’s terminatión rights may terminating parental dis- collecting The fact him from the benefit due entitle a child TANF, alone, standing cannot to con- Liam -is entitled state.” [the] capacity have the finding that she does not following state benefits tinue receive *6 provide to for her child.2 rights. of the father’s Therefore, is only interest in the State’s is: entry payments for TANF the reimbursement Judgment vacated. Remanded to the made, availability be proceedings Probate. Court or other benefits for the child. TANF opinion. this consistent with in recouping State’s financial J., ALEXANDER, concurring. funds the father should have from join I the Court’s concur in determining been considered a factor to opinion. separately I address write . by issue the De- important policy raised Second, stops if the mother re- Human partment Services. Liam, ceiving state on behalf benefits thorough statutory- The Court’s [¶22] or not to col- becomes her choice whether private ter- analysis the fa- demonstrates support child lect from statute, ther, mination if she collect from did decide (2015), private and the to M.R.S. would be her decision whether statutes, §§ adoption 18-A M.R.S. generally assist her. See use (2015), private to allow a situa- to 9-315 combine 19-A M.R.S. this vacating time the merits of the mother’s 2. Because the Probate this reach we matter, process. appeal we do not she was denied due Court’s decision this courts, to effec- not forum which that parents a child’s between action issue should be addressed. parent’s obligations a tively terminate be These laws can support. child pay Department’s concern could making exempt a invoked to statutory amendments addressed when the payments, even support child parents requirement such as a whose paying welfare benefits to State parental rights are continue to terminated shelter, food, care for clothing, and medical of their pay support, extent the child. ability, of Health support Human Services. The points opinion As the Court’s [¶23] into a go fund offset bene- could welfare out, paren- a initiated termination State paid support fits children in need 22 M.R.S. rights pursuant tal action relationship who have no public assistance effect, §§ 4050-4059 has the same biological parent parents or with a pay support ending parent’s obligation a relationship has terminated. paren- or her his or her child when his arrangement Such would result to law. are terminated tal any legal obligation or between §Id. child, biological parent but would ending parent’s result — Department’s objective to en- achieve support obligation to biological parent re- sure remains public, welfare while the State sponsible obligated his or pay begins or continues to programs, or reduce the her child avoid mandated the child—is not public need assistance. opinion. judicial or the Constitution policy It is made a result choices ad-
Legislature the statutes reflected These opinion. in the Court’s
dressed 22 M.R.S.
statutory provisions, particularly
goal
of termination
all biological parent who dem- child and David L. VIOLETTE. or she an unfit onstrated he No. Pen-15-310. Docket abusing the by abandoning or dam- *7 inter- aging requiring of Maine. Supreme Court Judicial from further protect the child vention damage. April on Briefs: Submitted 3,May Decided: Department [¶25] The appeal Human Services in this advocates policy position who
valid should, nevertheless,
unfit to a child obligated
remain to reduce the burden funds, pro-
public paid through welfare unfit bio-
grams, However, Legislature,
logical child.