Dean Pearson v. Stacie Ellis-Gross, 123 A.3d 223

Parents Dean Pearson and Stacie Ellis‑Gross share a minor child born in June 2003; original shared custody was ordered in 2004 and modified in 2007 to give primary residence to Ellis‑Gross with weekend time to Pearson.
In November 2013 Ellis‑Gross filed to modify custody, seeking sole parental rights and responsibilities, primary residence, and supervised contact for Pearson, alleging increasingly erratic and threatening behavior.
Evidence at hearing included Pearson’s arrest for disorderly conduct at the child’s school, an arrest for telephone harassment after a belligerent call to the school principal, and an occasion when he left the child (who has an autism spectrum disorder) alone for five hours despite medical advice requiring supervision.
Pearson testified that he would seek termination of his parental rights if denied unsupervised contact and made statements such as “at times you need to rattle some cages to get your way.”
The District Court found Pearson prone to resorting to violence, unwilling to follow medical advice about the child’s care, and that shared parental rights was unworkable and not in the child’s best interests; it awarded sole PRR and primary residence to Ellis‑Gross and ordered Pearson’s contact supervised.
Pearson appealed pro se; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, reviewing factual findings for clear error and the modification decision for abuse of discretion or error of law.

Issue	Ellis‑Gross’s Argument	Pearson’s Argument	Held
Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification	Pearson’s behavior had become erratic/threatening (arrests, school incidents, leaving child unsupervised)	No substantial change; contested notice of some hearings	Court inferred and found substantial change based on the evidence; not clearly erroneous
Whether sole parental rights and responsibilities should be awarded to Ellis‑Gross	Shared custody was unworkable given Pearson’s conduct and risk to child’s wellbeing	Argues close bond between child and him and extended family; limiting contact harms child	Court concluded sole PRR was in child’s best interests and within discretion
Whether Pearson’s contact should be supervised	Pearson’s volatile temper and disregard for medical advice create safety concerns	Supervised contact would improperly limit child’s relationship with Pearson and others	Court ordered supervised contact; supported by testimony and best‑interest factors
Procedural claim that lack of mailed notice to PO box rendered hearing unfair	Implied prejudice from missing a case management conference	Argued absence affected outcome	Court found claims moot given subsequent hearings and final order; not a basis to reverse

Sloan v. Christianson, 43 A.3d 978 (Me. 2012) (standard of review for modifying parental rights and responsibilities)
Jackson v. MacLeod, 100 A.3d 484 (Me. 2014) (burden to show substantial change and best‑interest analysis under 19‑A M.R.S. § 1653(3))
Pelletier v. Pelletier, 36 A.3d 903 (Me. 2012) (inference of factual findings when no Rule 52(b) request made)
Hutchison v. Bruyere, 111 A.3d 36 (Me. 2015) (standards for dismissing appeals for noncompliant briefing)
Stacey‑Sotiriou v. Sotiriou, 106 A.3d 417 (Me. 2014) (mootness of interim orders when final ruling resolves the modification)
Mehlhorn v. Derby, 905 A.2d 290 (Me. 2006) (appellate rule that undeveloped arguments may be disregarded)