*1 suspect providing ad- and refrain
vice, circumstances the and that some
provision defen- of such advice violate a rights, I
dant’s constitutional also conclude Chandler in these
that the conduct Officer type
сircumstances falls far short that so the sensibilities of
misconduct chocks society exclusion of
civilized as to necessitate nothing did
the evidence. Officer Chandler type oppressive constitutes proscribed by the Due
deceptive conduct of the Fourteenth Amend-
Process Clause deprives such conduct
ment. To hold that meaning
Stade of “within Fourteenth Amendment would trivialize process principle of
the centuries-old due Williams, Daniels v. 474 U.S.
law.” 88 L.Ed.2d 106 S.Ct.
(1986). suppression trial court’s
I would vacate
order. GLASSMAN, J.,
WATHEN, C.J., and
concur. OF HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT M.
Frank SABATTUS. of Maine.
Supreme Court Judicial General, Ketterer, Attorney Andrew Argued Feb. Doyen, E. (orally), Diane A. McKenna James Sept. Decided General, Augusta, for Attorneys Assistant Plaintiff. (orally), Fletcher Ma- L. Mahar
Dennis Calais, har, Defendant. ROBERTS, C.J., WATHEN, Before RUDMAN, CLIFFORD, GLASSMAN, LIPEZ, JJ. DANA and CLIFFORD, Justice. appeals from the
Frank Sabattus in the judgment entered *2 sano, J.) (Washington County, affirming appeal, Superior Mar On the affirmed Court part part in vacating part judgment and in District judgment the that of the Court (Calais, Romei, concluding Department entered in the that entitled District Court the to J.) determining past paternity authorizing and the reimbursement from Sabattus for and expenses. Department support of future child The court Human Services the and part judgment obligating vacated that the past child’s to of mother collect and future ex- pay to penses relating Department Sabattus monies to the on support. to child Sabattus H., Kathy holding adoption behаlf of that the adoption contends that an in decree entered precludes Department from decree the act- Washington the County Probate re- Court adoptive against ing on behalf of the mother any child, duty support lieves him to the adoption. the fаther who to consented the and that the by denying District Court erred Superior 60(b) The Court remanded to the District pursuant his motion to M.R.Civ.P. for past for Court a determination of the and judgment. relief from the Department The support Depart- future amounts of that the cross-apрeals, contending Superior that the expended expend ment had or will on behalf in concluding adoption Court erred that the appeals by child. the The Sabattus and Department decree is valid and the bars Department the followed. bringing from an action оn behalf Although child’s mother. we do not conclude Superior When Court acts as an inter void, adoption that the decree is we neverthe- court, appellate directly mediate we review that, less determine in the absence of the Page the decision of the District Court. v. support obligations being child assumed (Me.1996). Page, 671 A.2d We re party, an additional of the child for an view abuse of discretion the denial of a by its natural mother does not relieve Sabat- judgment. motion for relief a from McKin obligation pay tus of his support. to child 821, 828 ley McKinley, Accordingly, we judgment vacate the of the adoption petition The on which Sabattus Superior entry for Court remand obligation him of relies relieve judgment a affirming judgment of the support brought by Kathy his child was H. in District Court. Sabattus, the Probate Court. as the child’s Thе Department father, commenced this action consented to the child against H., in pursu- by Kathy Sabattus the District Court and a decree to that was ant to 19 M.R.S.A. granted & 448-A on October 1991. No action has (1981 Supp.1995) brought on own on its behalf and been set aside Kathy behalf of H. paternity to determine that decree. Sabattus contends a support obligation establish child re- that the District abused discretion its garding Kathy a child born by denying H. out of motion relief wedlock in 1986. paternity Sabattus admits holding and erred that any duty support but denies child decree dоes reheve him from all because he contends responsibilities regarding support that decree mother, Kathy payments issued to the child’s natural for the child. He contends H., any him reheves further adopt because natural her own pay support. child, child The court determined because statute in biological Sabattus to father of the effect at the time “the child, judgments paternity parents and entered are divested of all child,” payment respect of child to such and that the child is expenses medical purposes behalf State and “to all intents and the child of his $22,050.66. (1981), adopters,” repealed H. in the amount Aug. cur- pay court further ordered Sabattus 1994), per any duty support regarding rent amount $72 particular, week. filed a motion for relief from child has been Sabattus terminated. 60(b), formеrly judgment, M.R.Civ.P. as well as an Sabattus relies on found (1981) appeal providing to the in 19 M.R.S.A. Court. District 60(b) jointly, any “[a]ny Court denied Sabattus’s Rule motion. husband and wife or un- adequate person, representation child’s married resident or nonresident of absence of Cosmides, Maine, interests), Peregood v. may petition probate 663 So.2d the State (custodial regardless (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995) adopt person, court added.) age_”1 (Emphasis points He context *3 repeal prior limiting adoption parent obligation from release noncustodial in ex- by by pay adults to children “not birth”2 court ordered child theirs change legislative as an indication of intent that the for noncustodial voidable); rights adoption by relinquish is the child’s mother is valid. Be- visitation 773, valid, Sollenberger, argues, he it v. 656 A.2d 778-79 cause the Green (Md.1995) (adoption used operatеs sup- cannot be terminate his statute as mother to sever port. disagree. mechanism for natural We obligations rights and natural father’s We construe our statutes child), applicable statutory language on protect rights privileges of the child and biological рarent to single its face allows a Estate, being adopted. 147 re Goodwin’s § 535 adopt her own 19 M.R.S.A. child. 243-44, (1952); 237, 86 88 see Me. A.2d also provides a natural who consents that (Me. 482, Hoffman, Porter v. 592 A.2d 487 adoption gives up legal to the child’s his 1991) in (referring to state’s interest respect rights with to the сhild. Unlike adop welfare of the child in the context of 2056, § language provided in 22 M.R.S.A. tion). held that previously We have parental dealing termination of with the overriding serving the concern of best inter responsibilities, does duties and section 535 requires and of a minor child est wеlfare provide explicitly for the termination not support obligations equal be treated as the parent’s responsibilities. 19 M.R.S.A. responsibility of both the mother and the language, § Based and 535. father, discharged in with accordance strong protecting has in interest the state respective ability capacity. and Gard their insuring that and the interests children 721, Perry, ner v. 405 A.2d 725 support of parents to the both contribute father, owes a As child’s Sabattus 272, children, 271, §§ 19 their see M.R.S.A. duty support to that 19 child. M.R.S.A. 273, 448-A, an of a we conclude that obligation may by § 271. The be enforced mother, in by the absence child the natural Department. mother and child’s child assumption of those corresponding 271, §§ The obli 19 M.R.S.A. 448 & 448-A. person, as support obligations a new such gation support a child cannot be terminat husband, operate to not thе mother’s does by agreement parents. the child’s ed support obli- allow the father avoid Webster, Department Servs. v. Human See gations interests are when the child’s (Me.1979) (court 792, approved 794 398 adoption proceeding. in represented into paternity settlеment entered mother entry is: from father did not bar Judgment Court vacated. to contribute bringing compel action to entry judgment af- for the Remanded support). to child’s firming the District Court. jurisdictions Although a number of in similar contexts that have held WATHEN, C.J., and RUDMAN and voidable, parent is or by a void сhild’s natural DANA, JJ., concurring. see, by Avery e.g., T.R.L. v. State ex rel. GLASSMAN, Justice, joined by R.L.P., 1054, (Wyo.1989) 772 P.2d Justices, LIPEZ, dissenting. ROBERTS by mother no (adoption of own child with her agree with the Court purporting Because do not marriage terminate plans for severed Sabattus’s of the child obligation of father void in 72, (1981), language, formerly in R.S. ch. 2. found §§ in effect at the M.R.S.A. P.L.1921, (1916), proceeding, have since been ch. time of the was deleted P.L.1993, (effective Aug. 9, 1921). repealed, ch. July § 35 1994), replaced by 1101— 19 M.R.S.A. 686, § (Supp.1995); parental responsi but not his petition, At time of H.’s bilities, I respectfully provision setting dissent. estab Wеll within our statute statutory principles lished legal construction re forth the of an adoption, quire given plain part: that words must be pertinent their in “ meaning and ‘statute[s] must be construed By parents such decree the are as a legisla whole order to effectuate the legal rights respect divested all ” McGillivray Co., Royal tive intent.’ Ins. child and is freed all such he (Me.1996) 675 A.2d (quoting Fernald obligations of obedience and maintenance Bd., v. Maine State Parole 447 A.2d is, respect custody to them. He (Me.1982)). doing, In so the court must person right obedienсe *4 be of statutory mindful the “whole scheme maintenance, purposes to all intents and may so a harmonious result be .... adopters.... the child his of achieved.” Tew Daniels v. Mac Aero Ser added). (Emphasis emphasized The lan- vices, Inc., (Me.1996) (cit 984, 675 A.2d 987 that, guage of establishes as the effective Larson, 112, ing Thibeault v. 666 114 A.2d adoption, Kathy date the H. became the (Me.1995)). In failing apply addition to legal child, parent sole the acquiring principles, by these its decision the Court child, only parental rights the sole but the approves a construction of the statute that responsibilities also all of the as well.3 Be- implications affecting could have serious an adoption the cause had the effect termi- parent’s adopting ability to con obtain the nating parental rights, Sabattus’s Porter v. parеnt(s) sent of the natural if consent means 482, (Me.1991), Hoffman, 592 A.2d 486 the parental that all relinquished, are but provisions of the statute at' issue parental all responsibilities financial remain. conjunction must construed in the with policy public Such determinations are more provisions of governing the statutes the ter- properly Legislature. reserved to the rights, parental mination of 22 M.R.S.A. (1992 §§ Supp.1995), avoid the Because of Human Ser- Daniels, inconsistent results. 675 A.2d at from, appealed vices neither nor initiated 987. Title 22 permits Section 4055 of the aside, decree, action set the 1991 to order court the termination of agree with the Court that the is alia, rights, petition inter if “[t]he has been valid. are here to We asked determine the part adoption proceeding filed as of an provisions effect the of the stat- 531-538]; [sections [t]he Title and ... they obligations ute as relate to the of a parent consents to the termination.” Once parent adoption. natural who consents to an court, approved the “[a]n order terminat- query by focusing The Court answers this ing parental rights parent divests the § the first sentence of 19 M.R.S.A. legal rights, powers, privileges, all child of (1981), repealed § immunities, obligations duties to each 1, 1994), Aug. finding dispositive child_” other as M.R.S.A. language divesting the the parent’s added). (emphasis § 4056 con- Court’s legal rights and the absence of terminating struction of 19 M.R.S.A. expressly removing the natural parental rights terminating parental without Reading responsibilities. the as a statute responsibilities, impermissibly is at odds with whole, however, must, McGillivray, as we 4056 and cannot our M.R.S.A. survive at it 675 A.2d becomes clear that such an precedents governing statutory construction. interpretation give does not the plain meaning Legisla- Department, having the words Nor the failed to challenge adoption, impose ture. now seek to child, By petition [Kathy propriety her for the of the and of fitness and H.] alia, assеrted, Kathy adoption.” Having H. “ha[s] inter she such 19 M.R.S.A. 533. provide adopted ability provisions for the herself child.” Before availed statute, of the of the granting satisfied, petition, thereby attaining parental rights her court been must have sole alia, child, [Kathy "ability H.] inter of the she сannot take the of that now benefit up bring properly, casting responsibilities the child hav- while educate order aside ing degree go reference to the and condition of it. with Id. at binding on the State. obligations the child on one father was not financial for longer legally parent of the child. a who no (establishing Cf. dispositive distinction between Web- Department’s obligations following the is that the instant case ster and right obli mother’s to enforce those and/or approval court’s of the settlement father). conclusion gations against the This legally con- parents, child in Webster Dep’t is not inconsistent with our decision Here, by con- parents. to have two tinued Webster, trast, adoption, Human Servs. following the Webster, only parent: H. par legally had one the natural obligated for Although Sabattus remаins court-ap into a ents the child entered expended the State amounts proved paterni agreement in settlement of prior period effective the child ty purported suit filed the mother that the time and within date any further financial release the fathеr (Supp. § 273 limits in 19 M.R.S.A. “the child for the child. Because 1995),4 his parental rights, as well as supported through being by the State
was responsibilities, terminated with financial program Depen to Families with Aid *5 vacate the adoption.5 would Children,” petition brought State dent and remand decision against the father to enforce his for determi- to the District Court this case obligations. By his Id. at 792-93. obligations as financial nation of Sabattus’s answer, on 19 M.R.S.A. the father relied articulated herein. (1981) provides: agreement “An alleged is bind of settlement with the only
ing approved by the сourt.” Find when Department, we held that
ing favor divergent
the interests the mother were of the State and of
from the interests the mother and
child and settlement allege, and the rec- provides (Supp.1995) 5. The does 4. 19 M.R.S.A. adoption pro- pertinent part: support, ord would not past implement education and ceeding The father's liabilities for was a sham necessary period support are limited to a their H. to reduce Sabattus and years preceding of an next the commencement obligations. financial action.