Grant v. Hamm
2012 ME 79
| Me. | 2012Background
- Hamm and Grant are parents of a three-year-old daughter, with contested parental rights and responsibilities.
- Grant petitioned for sole parental rights; Hamm sought protections and visitation.
- GAL appointed in 2009; interim orders shifted from Grant to joint, then back to Grant with supervised visitation.
- Hamm filed a PFA in April 2010 alleging abuse; court found no abuse but ordered supervised access and emergency relief.
- 2011 final judgment allocated sole rights to Grant and restricted Hamm to limited visitation and no overnight visits; Hamm was not ordered to pay child support.
- GAL assisted Grant in filing the PFA; the PFA was later dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly applied 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)(0). | Hamm argues the court failed to make explicit Campbell findings. | Grant contends the findings were sufficient and section 1653(3)(0) was properly applied. | Yes, the court properly applied the factor and made clear findings. |
| Whether the court relied primarily on 1653(3)(0) at the expense of other factors. | Hamm asserts overreliance on the PFA misuse factor. | Grant contends the court considered multiple factors. | The court adequately evaluated the relevant factors and did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the court’s findings on other best-interest factors were adequate or required more explicit articulation. | Hamm argues insufficient addressing of all factors. | Grant asserts substantial evidence supports the judgment. | Court's explicit 1653(0) findings plus other factors supported the decision. |
| Whether the court complied with Campbell and related case law requiring specific express findings when relying on 1653(3)(0). | Hamm seeks explicit statutory-language findings. | Court’s findings satisfied clear and convincing requirements. | Court’s findings satisfied Campbell’s requirements. |
| Whether the court’s overall best-interest analysis was consistent with 19-A M.R.S. § 1653 and case law. | Hamm maintains incomplete consideration of factors. | Court considered factors A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, N, and 0. | Yes, the court conducted a comprehensive best-interest analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Campbell, 604 A.2d 33 (Me. 1992) (requires explicit findings on tactical purpose and cooperation; no reasonable ground for complaint)
- In re Jacob C., 965 A.2d 47 (Me. 2009) (applies standard for review of best interests; deference to trial court)
- In re Alivia B., 8 A.3d 625 (Me. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard in best-interest determinations)
- Ezell v. Lawless, 955 A.2d 202 (Me. 2008) (court need not address every factor if reasoning is evident)
- Nadeau v. Nadeau, 957 A.2d 108 (Me. 2008) (courts may not be required to articulate every factor; must show evaluation)
- Grenier v. Grenier, 904 A.2d 403 (Me. 2006) (supports weighing substantial factors beyond 1653(0))
- Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007) (absence of Rule 52 motion implies competent evidence supports judgment)