Kennedy v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT Docket No. AP-06-10 /: , -,'; , I \ y t - 2 ' STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, SS. \ J JAMES G. KENNEDY, Petitioner. v. ) 1 i ) ) MAINE DEPARTMENT OF 1 HEALTH AND HUMAN 1 SERVICES, ) Respondent. ) ) 9001 L 2 130 A W l f l 1 7 MV7 -----~ 1 U 3 3 y ~ 8 ~-7 ~ ~ \ ( N O Q 3 ORDER I -.- - F I ,I E ;: .,, qb;i+;y L . . 1- , ,, j. ;.f - .. {( :; . . ----,..- E0 (3CI1.3RV OCT 1 7 2U06 PENOBSCOT COUNTY The material facts in this Rule 80C appeal are essentially uncontroverted. The Petitioner appeals from a decision of Maine Department of Health and Human Services Hearing Officers which established a chld support obligation of $141.00 per week and an arrearage of $40,673.00. He argues that Respondent exceeded its legal authority in entering these Orders and otherwise acted inconsistently with the law. This matter came to the Respondent in a somewhat unusual configuration. The Petitioner had been married to a citizen o the Federal Republic of Germany and resided f there for a while. He and h s wife had a single child - a son who is the subject of the c h l d support obligations discussed herein. Petitioner's former wife (Yvonne) obtained a divorce judgment from a German court which awarded full custody of the child to her but made no mention of child support. Apparently Yvonne received some manner of public assistance for the chld and the German authorities commenced tkus action by petition dated March 29,2005, seeking, inter alia, recovery for those amounts.' The parties agree that Maine and the Federal Republic of Germany have a reciprocal agreement for enforcement of chld support obligations. Enforcement is undertaken pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), 19 MRSA Ch. 67, Subch. 6. The Respondent served Petitioner with the usual Notice of Proceeding to Establish Child Support and hearings were held to determine the presumptive amount of support and the amount of any arrearage. After the Respondent established obligations as noted in the first paragraph of this Order, Petitioner appealed. Petitioner argues at the outset that the Federal Republic of Germany has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the child support obligating and that the Maine I Apparently the German social service agency had paid the amount of $14,468.25 to Yvonne and anticipated a rate of $5 1 5.29 per month continuing into the future. i Department of Human Services has no authority to be establishng the amount of any monthly obligation or arrearage. He asserts that the amounts have already been established and that Respondent's role is limited to an enforcement function. T h s court is satisfied that Germany, as an "initiating state," or tribunal has appropriately presented a petition whch triggers an obligation for Maine to respond. After review, the court is equally satisfied that Germany effectively petitioned the State of Maine to establish the amount of support, consistent with law, and to provide for enforcement of such. There is not suggestion that the German courts or authorities ever undertook to hold a hearing or other proceedings to determine the appropriate amount of Petitioner's child support obligation. It has provided a summary of the amounts paid, but h s is not a presumptive chld support obligation under Maine or German law. It falls to the Respondent to establish such. The court has reviewed the hearing officer's conduct of the proceedings and application of the Maine Chld Support Guidelines and the court finds no obvious error therein. Although Petitioner makes a case for deviations upon five theories in his Brief, the court concludes that the hearing officer appropriately rejected them (to the extent that they were properly presented). In sum, it is clear that the Respondent was not simply enforcing an existing Order of support. Nor was it modifying one. It was establishing one where none existed previously and had the authority and jurisdiction to do so. As such, Petitioner's appeal is denied and the matter is remanded to the Respondent for appropriate further action. The Clerk may incorporate h s Order upon !%docket by reference. Dated: October 16, 2006 J U ~ I C E MAINE SUPERIOR COURT , PENOBSCOT County Date Filed 6/15/06 ti^^ Docket No. AP-2006-10 RULE 80C APPEAL ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ANDREW M. JAMES G. KENNEDY MEAD (Appellant) Plaintiff's Attorney EDWARD C. SPAIGHT, ESQ. P 0 BOX 919 BANGOR, ME. 04402-0919 vs. MAINE DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE8 Defendant's Attorney ROBERT M. LASKEY, AAG OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 6 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA ME 04333-0006 Date of Entry 6/15/06 Appeal of Final Agency Action M.R.Civ.P. 6/19/06 Notice of Assigned Justice filed. Pursuant to Administrative Order, Single Justice Assignment of Civil Cases, Docket No. SJC-323, the above referenced case is specially assigned to Justice Andrew M. Mead. /s/~argaret Gardner, Clerk. Copy forwarded to Plaintiff's Attorney. 6/21/06 80C filed (attachment attached). Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summons and Complaint as to' Defendant by Robert M. Laskey, AAG, (s.d. 6/15/06), filed by Plaintiff. 7/3/06 Entry of Appearance filed by Robert M. Laskey, A.A.G. on behalf of Respondent, Commissioner, Maine Department of Health and Human Services. 7/5/06 Copy of Notice of Assigned Justice forwarded to attorney for Respondent. 7/11/06 Certification of Record filed by Respondent. Two (2) binders. 7/11/06 Notice and Briefing Schedule 80C Appeal of Final Agency Actions forwarded t c attorneys of record. 8/17/06 Brief for the Appellant filed. 9/18/06 Brief of the Respondent filed. 10/2/06 Appellant's Reply Brief. 1°/13/06 Order Issued: The parties have submitted briefs on 80C Appeal. The court takes the matter under advisement, without oral argument and an order will be issued in due course. (Mead, J) Copy forwarded to all Attorneys of Record. 10/17/06 File returned by Justice Mead. 10/17/06 Order issued. Petitioner's Appeal is denied and the matter is remanded to the Respoqdent for appropriate further action. The Clerk may incorporate the Order upon the docket by reference. (Mead, J.) Copy forwarded to attorneys of record. and to Deborah Firestone, Donald Garbrecht Law Library and to Donald Goss Data Services. Order issued.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
