Summary
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment finding that two children were in circumstances of jeopardy under Maine law and that returning them to their father's custody would likely cause serious emotional or physical damage under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The court held that the trial court's factual findings, including physical altercations, substance abuse, housing instability, and inadequate parenting responses, supported both determinations.
Holdings
- The District Court's findings established, as more likely than not, that returning the children to the father's custody would cause serious harm or the threat of serious harm and therefore supported a finding of jeopardy under 22 M.R.S. § 4035(2).
- The District Court's findings were supported by competent record evidence and sufficiently established by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to the father's custody was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage under 25 U.S.C.S. § 1912(e).
- Maine law and ICWA apply concurrently in an Indian child-protection proceeding, resulting in a dual burden of proof: preponderance of the evidence for Maine-law jeopardy and clear and convincing evidence for the ICWA serious-damage determination.
Questions Presented
- Whether competent record evidence supported the District Court's determination under 22 M.R.S. § 4035(2) that the children were in circumstances of jeopardy.
- Whether the record supported the determination under ICWA that returning the children to the father's custody was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (5)
- In re Denice F., 658 A.2d 1070, 1072 (Me. 1995)(followed)
- In re Danielle H., 2019 ME 134, ¶ 2, 215 A.3d 217(followed)
- In re Nicholas S., 2016 ME 82, ¶ 9, 140 A.3d 1226(followed)
- In re Chelsey B., 499 A.2d 137, 139 (Me. 1985)(followed)
- State v. Cookson, 2019 ME 30, ¶ 8, 204 A.3d 125(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…