Cases

JABAR, J. [¶1] Mark Belliveau appeals from the District Court's (Biddeford, Sutton, J. ) dismissal of his complaint for divorce from Janet Whelan because the parties were never legally married. Belliveau argues that the court erred by declining to adopt the putative spouse doctrine or the doctrine of marriage by estoppel. We affirm the judgment.

PER CURIAM *1077[¶ 1] Domenick B. appeals from an order of the District Court (Ellsworth, Roberts, J. ) terminating his parental rights to his child.1 He argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding of parental unfitness. Alternatively, the father argues that the court abused

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The mother óf Noah' B. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland, Eggert, J.) terminating her parental rights to Noah pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(A)(l)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2016).1 She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the court’s discretionary determination of the child’s best interest. Becaus

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The mother óf Noah' B. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland, Eggert, J.) terminating her parental rights to Noah pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(A)(l)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2016).1 She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the court’s discretionary determination of the child’s best interest. Becaus

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The mother óf Noah' B. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland, Eggert, J.) terminating her parental rights to Noah pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(A)(l)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2016).1 She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the court’s discretionary determination of the child’s best interest. Becaus

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The mother of Danika B., Victor B., and Daytona C. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Lewiston, Dow, J.) terminating her parental rights to the children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2016). The mother argues that the court’s finding that the Department of Health and Human Services did not

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The mother óf Noah' B. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Portland, Eggert, J.) terminating her parental rights to Noah pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(A)(l)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii) (2016).1 She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the court’s discretionary determination of the child’s best interest. Becaus

JABAR, J. [¶ 1] Henry B. appeals from an order of the Superior Court (Knox County, Billings, J.), acting as an intermediate appellate court, affirming the District Court’s (Rockland, Sparaco, J.) order of involuntary commitment. Henry raises a novel question of law: whether individuals subject to involuntary commitment proceedings in Maine have the right to effective representation of counsel. Henry contends

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The mother of Kaliyah B. appeals from an order of the District Court (Bangor, Jordan, J.) finding jeopardy as to both her and the father pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035(4-A) (2016), and ordering that the child be placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4036(1)(F) (2016).1 Because (1) a disposi-tional order of custody is n

Matter of Unique B. (Janet J.) (2023 NY Slip Op 02963) Matter of Unique B. (Janet J.) 2023 NY Slip Op 02963 Decided on June 06, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The mother of Kaliyah B. appeals from an order of the District Court (Bangor, Jordan, J.) finding jeopardy as to both her and the father pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035(4-A) (2016), and ordering that the child be placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4036(1)(F) (2016).1 Because (1) a disposi-tional order of custody is n

Matter of Unique B. (Janet J.) (2023 NY Slip Op 02963) Matter of Unique B. (Janet J.) 2023 NY Slip Op 02963 Decided on June 06, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary

HUMPHREY, J. [¶ 1] The mother of Dominic B. and Channing T. appeals from a judgment of the. District Court (Lewiston,. Dow, J.) terminating her parental rights to her children. 1 See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A), (B) (2016). [¶ 2] The mother does not challenge the court’s findings that she is unfit to parent the children because. (1) she has abandoned them, (2) she

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The parents of Myra B. and Nicole B. appeal from a judgment of the District Court (Belfast, Worth, J.) terminating their parental rights to the children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(A)(l)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii) (2016). They challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the court’s discretionary determinations of the children’s best interests. Because the evidence

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The mother of Kaliyah B. appeals from an order of the District Court (Bangor, Jordan, J.) finding jeopardy as to both her and the father pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035(4-A) (2016), and ordering that the child be placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4036(1)(F) (2016).1 Because (1) a disposi-tional order of custody is n

HUMPHREY, J. [¶ 1] The mother of Dominic B. and Channing T. appeals from a judgment of the. District Court (Lewiston,. Dow, J.) terminating her parental rights to her children. 1 See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A), (B) (2016). [¶ 2] The mother does not challenge the court’s findings that she is unfit to parent the children because. (1) she has abandoned them, (2) she

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The parents of Bradyn B. appeal from a judgment entered by the District Court (Presque Isle, O’Mara, J.) terminating their parental rights to Bradyn pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2) (2016). Both parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s findings that they are unfit, and the father also challenges the court’s discretionary determination that terminati

PER CURIAM [¶ 1] The parents of Myra B. and Nicole B. appeal from a judgment of the District Court (Belfast, Worth, J.) terminating their parental rights to the children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(l)(A)(l)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i), (b)(ii) (2016). They challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment and the court’s discretionary determinations of the children’s best interests. Because the evidence

HUMPHREY, J. [¶ 1] The mother of Dominic B. and Channing T. appeals from a judgment of the. District Court (Lewiston,. Dow, J.) terminating her parental rights to her children. 1 See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A), (B) (2016). [¶ 2] The mother does not challenge the court’s findings that she is unfit to parent the children because. (1) she has abandoned them, (2) she

HJELM, J. [¶ 1] In this child protection action, the father of Emma B. appeals from a judgment entered in the District Court (Water-ville, Mathews, J.) finding that the child is in circumstances of jeopardy, see 22 M.R.S. §§ 4035, 4036 (2016), and ordering that the child be placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Servi