Martin v. MacMahan

264 A.3d 1224 (2022)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Martin v. MacMahan

Maine Supreme Court
264 A.3d 1224 (2022)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Mark Martin (plaintiff) and Marylou MacMahan (defendant) were the biological parents of twins (the children) born in 2014. The couple did not have a vehicle and lacked resources to provide for the children. Dawn Ostrander, a lifelong friend of MacMahan, and Dawn’s husband, James Ostrander, provided all the necessities of care for the children, including diapers, formula, and clothing. Dawn drove MacMahan and the children to medical appointments. When the twins were four months old, Martin moved the family to Kansas, thinking he would find employment and housing there. Martin was wrong and instead was arrested after being caught shoplifting. Thereafter, Martin generally stayed in Kansas. MacMahan and the children had no money, housing, or transportation. Dawn brought them back to Maine and provided all aspects of the children’s care. The children also primarily lived with the Ostranders, and Martin refused to bring them to Kansas. In June 2017, Martin filed for divorce. In April 2018, the Ostranders obtained a protective order from abuse against MacMahan on behalf of the children. Martin contacted the Ostranders and gave them temporary legal authority over the children. The children visited Martin for a few months in 2018 but otherwise resided with the Ostranders. The children relied on the Ostranders to meet all their needs; the children’s teachers and healthcare providers had only ever had contact with the Ostranders. In November 2018, the Ostranders sought a court ruling of de facto parentage. In opposition, Martin sought sole custody of the children. The court held a trial and found in favor of the Ostranders on each of the elements of their de facto parentage claim, including that MacMahan supported and accepted that the Ostranders were acting as parents to the children and that Martin knew or should have known about the de-facto-parent relationship and purposefully chose to abdicate his financial and care responsibilities. The court ruled that it was in the children’s best interests to have their primary residence with the Ostranders. Martin appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Horton, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership