Title: In re Guardianship by Stacey M.

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
 2022 ME 1 
Docket: 
Han-21-88 
Submitted 
On Briefs:  September 22, 2021 
Decided: 
 January 6, 2022 
 
Panel: 
 STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, and CONNORS, JJ. 
 
 
GUARDIANSHIP BY STACEY M. 
 
 
HUMPHREY, J. 
[¶1]  Stacey M. appeals from a judgment of the Hancock County Probate 
Court (Blaisdell, J.) denying her petition to modify or terminate an order of the 
Connecticut Superior Court that transferred custody and guardianship of her 
child to the child’s paternal grandmother and step-grandfather.  Because we 
conclude that the Probate Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we vacate 
the judgment and remand for dismissal of the petition. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  The child at issue here was born in Connecticut in 2007 and was 
placed almost immediately in the custody of the Connecticut Department of 
Children and Families (DCF).  Approximately one year later, while still in DCF’s 
legal custody, the child was placed with her paternal grandmother and 
step-grandfather in New Hampshire.  On April 13, 2010, the Connecticut 
Superior Court held a hearing on a motion filed by the Connecticut DCF, which 
 
2 
sought to transfer legal custody and guardianship of the child to the child’s 
paternal grandmother and step-grandfather.  With the agreement of both 
parents, the court granted DCF’s motion that same day and informed the 
mother that she would be required to return to the Connecticut Superior Court 
if she sought to have her rights “reinstated.”   
[¶3]  In order to correct a clerical mistake, the Connecticut Superior Court 
issued an “Order of Custody/Guardianship” on July 8, 2010, revoking its April 
13, 2010, order but simultaneously again transferring custody and 
guardianship to the child’s paternal grandmother and step-grandfather.1   
 
[¶4]  In 2017, the mother filed in the New Hampshire Circuit Court a 
petition 
to 
modify 
or 
terminate 
the 
Connecticut 
“Order 
of 
Custody/Guardianship.”  The court denied the petition and the mother 
appealed.  In October 2019, the New Hampshire Supreme Court determined 
that the New Hampshire Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition 
under New Hampshire’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement 
 
1  The purpose of the new order, which was entered on DCF’s request, was to change the effective 
date of the guardianship to enable the guardians to qualify for a state subsidy unavailable to them 
under the April order.   
 
3 
Act (UCCJEA) and remanded to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the 
petition.2  See In re Guardianship of K.B., 233 A.3d 328, 329-35 (N.H. 2019). 
[¶5]  After the mother, the child, and the guardians had all moved to 
Maine, the mother filed a petition in the Hancock County Probate Court on 
November 22, 2019, seeking to register and modify or terminate the 
Connecticut order.  A copy of the Connecticut order was included with the 
petition.  Neither the mother nor the guardians challenged the Probate Court’s 
jurisdiction. 
[¶6]  After holding a two-day hearing on the merits, the Probate Court 
denied the mother’s petition on February 19, 2021.  In its decision, the court 
expressed concern for the emotional turmoil experienced by the child as a 
result of the litigation and determined that the guardians had proved by clear 
and convincing evidence that the mother was unable to meet the child’s needs 
and that living with the mother would have a substantial adverse effect on the 
child.  See 18-C M.R.S. § 5-210(7) (2021); see also 18-C M.R.S. § 5-204(2)(C) 
 
2  Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that New Hampshire’s UCCJEA applied 
and that the UCCJEA’s jurisdictional requirements had not been met, In re Guardianship of K.B., 
233 A.3d 328, 332-34 (N.H. 2019), we do not reach such issues of interstate jurisdiction.  The UCCJEA 
does not confer independent subject matter jurisdiction, see In re Teagan K.-O., 242 A.3d 59, 79 
(Conn. 2020); Williams v. Williams, 555 N.E.2d 142, 145 (Ind. 1990), and we here consider the 
preliminary question of whether the Probate Court—a court of limited, statutory jurisdiction—had 
jurisdiction over the subject matter that the mother’s petition attempted to place before it, see In re 
Estate of Hiller, 2014 ME 2, ¶ 20, 86 A.3d 9. 
 
4 
(2021).3  The mother timely appealed.  See 18-C M.R.S. § 1-308 (2021); M.R. 
Civ. P. 123; M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).   
II.  DISCUSSION 
[¶7]  Although the mother initiated this matter in Maine by filing her 
petition in the Hancock County Probate Court, she now argues on appeal that 
the Probate Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Connecticut 
order was part of a child protection matter that, in Maine, would be subject to 
the District Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.  We address this issue even though it 
was not raised in the trial court because “lack of subject matter jurisdiction 
cannot be waived and may be raised at any time.”  Monteith v. Monteith, 2021 
ME 40, ¶ 22, 255 A.3d 1030.   
[¶8]  “Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a particular court 
to hear the type of case that is then before it.”  Id. (quotation marks omitted).  
A court has no authority to act absent subject matter jurisdiction, and whether 
 
3  Title 18-C M.R.S. § 5-204(2)(C) has since been amended, see P.L. 2021, ch. 340, § 1 (effective 
Oct. 18, 2021) (to be codified at 18-C M.R.S. § 5-204(2)(C)), but the amendment does not affect the 
analysis in this case. 
 
5 
a court had such jurisdiction is an issue of law that we review de novo.  
In re Higera N., 2010 ME 77, ¶ 10, 2 A.3d 265. 
[¶9]  We begin by examining the nature of the Connecticut proceeding 
that resulted in the challenged order transferring custody and guardianship of 
the child to the child’s paternal grandmother and step-grandfather.  The order 
was issued pursuant to Connecticut General Statute section 46b-129, which 
authorized Connecticut’s Commissioner of Children and Families to petition the 
Connecticut Superior Court for “appropriate action” regarding uncared-for or 
neglected children, including children in circumstances of abuse.4  See Conn. 
Gen. Stat. § 46b-129(a) (2011); see also Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-120(8)-(9) 
(2011) (defining “neglected” and “uncared for”).5  Section 46b-129 and its 
procedures were analogous to Maine’s child protection statutes.6  See Conn. 
 
4  Section 46b-129 also authorized other agencies and individuals to file a petition, including any 
selectman, town manager, municipal welfare department, probation officer, child, representative or 
foster parent of a child, and any other child-caring agency approved by the DCF Commissioner. 
5  In this opinion, we cite the versions of the Connecticut General Statutes that were in effect when 
the Connecticut Superior Court entered the July 8, 2010, “Order of Custody/Guardianship.”  Section 
46b-129 has since been amended on multiple occasions, see e.g., 2021 Conn. Acts 21-140, § 5 (2021 
Jan. Reg. Sess.) (codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-129 (LEXIS through 2021 Reg. Sess. and June Spec. 
Sess.)), but those amendments are not relevant here, nor did they alter the nature of section 46b-129 
as a child protection statute that provides for the handling of petitions as to neglected and 
uncared-for youth.      
6  For example, in Connecticut, once a petition was filed, and if the Connecticut Superior Court 
determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the child was or would be in danger, 
section 46b-129(b) allowed the court to issue a temporary order vesting the child’s custody in an 
appropriate agency.  Cf. 22 M.R.S. §§ 4034(2), 4036(1)(F) (2021).  After a preliminary hearing on the 
temporary custody order, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-129(c) (2011); cf. 22 M.R.S. § 4034(4) (2021), 
 
6 
Gen. Stat. § 46b-129 (2011); cf. 22 M.R.S. §§ 4032-33 (2021).  We therefore 
consider whether the Probate Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 
Maine law to hear the mother’s petition to modify or terminate a child custody 
order issued in another state’s child protection matter.   
[¶10]  “The Probate Courts in Maine are statutory courts of special and 
limited jurisdiction,” and they “may hear and determine only those matters 
authorized by statute.”  In re Adoption of G., 502 A.2d 1044, 1045-46 (Me. 1986); 
see also In re Estate of Hiller, 2014 ME 2, ¶ 20, 86 A.3d 9 (“[W]hether the Probate 
Court has jurisdiction over a specific matter turns on whether a statute confers 
jurisdiction . . . .”).  Although the Probate Court has shared jurisdiction with the 
District Court to appoint guardians for minors in private actions, see 4 M.R.S. 
§ 152(5-A) (2021); 18-C M.R.S. § 5-104(1) (2021), Maine law does not provide 
the Probate Court with authority to order, modify, or terminate a guardianship 
in a child protection matter initiated through the filing of a child protection 
 
the Superior Court was required to hold a hearing on the order for temporary custody, see Conn. Gen. 
Stat. § 46b-129(f) (2011); cf. 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2021).  
 
7 
petition, see 18-C M.R.S. §§ 5-202, 5-204, 5-210 (2021); 22 M.R.S. § 4031(1)(A) 
(2021).7 
[¶11]  Child protection cases are distinguishable from other types of child 
custody matters; “the focus . . . in a child protection case is to determine whether 
a child requires protection in the first instance, not to determine who should 
have custody.”  In re Higera N., 2010 ME 77, ¶ 18 n.7, 2 A.3d 265; see In re 
Teagan K.-O., 242 A.3d 59, 83 (Conn. 2020) (“Neglect proceedings are 
materially different from traditional custody disputes . . . . A state child 
protection agency or its commissioner is the opposing party in a neglect 
proceeding.”).8 
[¶12]  Absent any statute conferring upon it the authority to hear child 
protection matters, the Probate Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction 
 
7  Nor could the UCCJEA—if applicable—provide the Probate Court with independent subject 
matter jurisdiction to hear this particular type of case.  See, e.g., In re Teagan K.-O., 242 A.3d at 79 
(“[T]he UCCJEA . . . does not create jurisdiction but prescribes the circumstances under which 
jurisdiction that otherwise is conferred by constitution or statute can be exercised in a given case.”); 
Williams, 555 N.E.2d at 145 (“The authority to hear child custody cases is not directly granted by the 
[UCCJEA]”). 
8  The distinct nature of guardianships entered in child neglect proceedings pursuant to Conn. Gen. 
Stat. § 46b-129, such as the one at issue here, is the basis for the Connecticut Superior Court’s 
exclusive jurisdiction over such guardianships under Connecticut law.  See In re Juvenile Appeal, 488 
A.2d 790, 802 (Conn. 1985) (concluding that the Connecticut Superior Court has exclusive 
jurisdiction to enter “custody-guardianship orders” in cases where there was a finding that the child 
is uncared-for or neglected because “[t]he language of § 46b-129 . . . reveals . . . a clear distinction 
between guardianships ordered by the Superior Court in accordance with that provision and those 
ordered by appointment of the Probate Court”); see also In re Joshua S., 796 A.2d 1141, 1150-52 
 
8 
to consider or adjudicate the mother’s petition to modify a guardianship 
established in Connecticut’s equivalent of a child protection matter. 
The entry is: 
 
 
Judgment vacated.  Remanded for dismissal of 
the petition. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Albert Hansen, Esq., Hansen Law Offices, PLLC, Kennebunk, for appellant Stacey 
M. 
 
Eric N. Columber, Esq., Columber Law Offices, Ellsworth, for appellees paternal 
grandmother and step-grandfather 
 
 
Hancock County Probate Court docket number 2019-477 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY 
 
 
(Conn. 2002) (holding that adjudications of neglect pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-129 fall under 
the jurisdiction of Connecticut’s Superior Court, not its Probate Court).