Daniel E. Wathen

This case involved a post-divorce dispute between Henry Shanoski and Marjorie Miller over visitation with their daughter, including a conflict over whether Maine or North Carolina courts should exercise jurisdiction. After the North Carolina court asserted jurisdiction, Shanoski sought enforcement of prior Maine orders and clarification of visitation in Maine, while Miller moved to have Maine decline jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under the UCCJEA. The Maine District Court ruled that Maine had jurisdiction but declined to exercise it, finding North Carolina the more appropriate forum due to the child's long residence there and the location of relevant evidence; the Superior Court affirmed. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the UCCJEA factors and that the PKPA did not require Maine to retain the case. The judgment declining jurisdiction was affirmed.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a mother's appeal from a District Court judgment terminating her parental rights to her five children, following findings of unsafe living conditions, parental mental health issues, failure to comply with rehabilitation services, and cessation of visitations. The mother claimed violations of her free exercise of religion due to references to her Wiccan beliefs at an earlier hearing, a due process violation because she was absent from the cease-reunification hearing, and insufficient evidence supporting the termination and best-interests findings, particularly given the older children's preferences. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the termination, holding that any religious references did not taint the proceedings, the mother's absence did not violate due process given proper notice, and the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the findings on unfitness and best interests. The court reasoned that it had properly considered but was not bound by the children's wishes under statute, and that the mother's manipulative behavior and inability to provide stability outweighed those preferences. Credibility determinations by the trial court were upheld as within its discretion.

family lawreligious libertycivil rights

In State v. Deschenes, Michael Deschenes was convicted by a jury on two charges of operating under the influence after separate incidents at a park in Oxford, Maine, in May and July 2000. The Superior Court entered judgments on the verdicts, and Deschenes appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of operation or attempted operation. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that Deschenes's admission to driving after drinking sufficed to prove operation on the first charge under 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2431(4), and the officer's testimony about Deschenes attempting to start the vehicle while intoxicated established a substantial step toward operation on the second charge.

criminal law

In Bragdon v. Town of Vassalboro, neighbors appealed the Planning Board's approval of a site permit for an aluminum manufacturing facility, contending that the town's site review ordinance was invalid because it lacked a prior comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance, that certain performance standards were unconstitutionally vague, and that the absence of written findings violated due process. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision upholding the approval. The court held that state law does not require a comprehensive plan for site review ordinances that apply uniform standards town-wide without dividing land into zones, that overly vague standards cannot be invoked to block an approval, and that the board's publicly available minutes provided a sufficient record to satisfy due process absent a request for additional findings.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death negligence claim brought by the personal representative of Douglas Dionne against a taxi service and driver after Dionne, who had been drinking heavily, was transported by the taxi to a tavern and later to the Elks Lodge before dying in a single-car accident with a blood-alcohol level of .25. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed. The court held that common carriers owe a duty only to provide passengers a safe exit in a reasonably safe place and declined to expand that duty to require preventing an intoxicated passenger from later driving after safe discharge. The decision rested on the uncontested facts showing the driver observed Dionne walk safely into the locations and that the carrier-passenger relationship ended upon safe discharge.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Karen Richards sued the Town of Eliot and two police officers for claims including unlawful arrest, excessive force, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of constitutional rights and municipal procedures, stemming from her arrest after refusing to surrender her granddaughter to the child's mother during a custody dispute. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment on the unlawful arrest claim because the officers had probable cause to arrest Richards for the Class D offense of criminal restraint committed in their presence. The court vacated the summary judgment on the excessive force claim, however, concluding that disputed facts created a genuine issue regarding the reasonableness of the force used.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability