Martin v. Macmahan

264 A.3d 1224 (2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Martin (F) and MacMahan (M) are the biological parents of twins born in March 2014. When the children were born, M and F did not have a vehicle. Dawn Ostrander, M's lifelong friend, drove M to prenatal care appointments, drove the children home from the hospital after they were born, and drove M and the children to subsequent checkups. Dawn and her husband, James Ostrander helped care for the children and supplied the necessities of care, such as diapers, wipes, formula, and clothing. When the children were about four months old, F moved the family to Kansas. After staying a week with F's mother and grandmother, the family moved to a motel and then started living out of a car. While they were still in the motel, F began shoplifting DVDs to make money. He was arrested in December 2014 and spent about a week in jail. He was placed on probation until October 2015. M and the children had no money, housing, or means of transportation. M called Dawn Ostrander, who drove to Kansas, brought M and the children back to Maine and helped M find a place to live. The Ostranders resumed providing M with the necessities of care for the children, including diapers, wipes, formula, clothing, bassinets, and car seats. By April 2016, the children were living primarily with the Ostranders, who provided for all aspects of their care. F did not provide any support for the children. In April 2016, when the children had just turned two years old, the Ostranders began providing full-time care for them at the request of a community organization concerned about M's lack of stable housing, and, with limited exceptions, the children have resided with the Ostranders full-time ever since. Dawn Ostrander has enrolled both children in speech therapy and has transported them to those sessions for several years. In June 2017, F came to Maine, believing that he had an agreement with M that he would take custody of the children for some period of time. M did not permit him to see the children. F initiated a divorce action against M and then returned to Kansas. Christmas 2017 was the first time F had seen the children since being arrested in Kansas in December 2014. A Family Law Magistrate awarded shared parental rights to M and F and granted primary residence to M, and set a contact schedule that included a two-month visit with F in Kansas during the summer of 2018. The children were otherwise living with the Ostranders. In April 2018, the Ostranders obtained a protection from abuse order against M on behalf of the children. F then gave the Ostranders temporary legal authority over the children and told them he would come to get the children in June. F then moved to modify the divorce judgment, seeking primary residence and sole parental rights. In June 2018, the Ostranders filed petitions seeking guardianship of the children. The magistrate declined to modify the divorce judgment and issued no decision regarding the Ostranders' guardianship petitions. F did not return the children to Maine in August 2018. He also did not comply with the interim order's requirement that he allow the Ostranders to have contact with the children three times per week. The court authorized the Ostranders to pick up the children in Kansas as soon as possible. The children have resided with the Ostranders ever since. Since 2016, the Ostranders have received a total of $100 in financial support from F and $85 in financial support from M, and they have received no state or federal financial aid in caring for the children. The children are doing well socially and academically, and the Ostranders are active and concerned caretakers. The court found that the children resided primarily with the Ostranders since 2016, the Ostranders have engaged in caretaking for the children since before the children were born, consistently providing emotional, financial, educational, and medical support for the children on a day-to-day basis, the Ostranders have provided the only stable parenting the children have known, and the children are deeply bonded to them, the Ostranders have accepted responsibility for the children without expecting compensation, and remaining with the Ostranders is in the children's best interests. The court found that 'M does not dispute that she fostered and supported the relationship between the Ostranders and the children.' The court found that F had 'abdicated his financial and personal responsibility to care for the children and . . . continues to do so.' The court gave the Ostranders final decision-making authority and issued a child support order. F appealed.