Handrahan v. Malenko
12 A.3d 79
| Me. | 2011Background
- Handrahan filed a protection from abuse petition on behalf of her minor daughter against Malenko.
- Two Spurwink evaluations, including a forensic interview of the child, suggested moderate evidence of abuse.
- The district court admitted expert reports and weighed the child’s statements with cautions about reliability.
- The court found Handrahan failed to prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Handrahan appealed, challenging liberal construction of the statutes and the trial court’s factual determinations.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed for liberal construction and clear-error sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protective statutes are liberally construed. | Handrahan argues liberal construction must be applied to favor protection. | Malenko contends standard preponderance governs with conventional evidence handling. | Statutes liberal in application, but preponderance required. |
| Whether the trial court’s weight given to expert testimony was clearly erroneous. | Handrahan asserts the experts’ moderate-evidence finding compelled abuse. | Malenko asserts court may reject expert opinion and weigh evidence itself. | No clear-error with court’s weight given to expert testimony. |
| Whether admission of the Spurwink reports and child’s statements was proper. | Handrahan relied on the reports to establish evidence of abuse. | Malenko argued double hearsay and improper hearsay foundations. | Errors, if any, harmless; evidence properly considered. |
| Whether the trial court properly evaluated reliability of the child’s out-of-court statement. | Child’s disclosures should support a finding of abuse given consistency. | Child’s age and lack of truth/lie distinction undermine reliability. | Court properly assessed reliability and declined to find preponderance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Black, 537 A.2d 1154 (Me. 1988) (limits expert testimony on truthfulness of disclosures)
- State v. York, 564 A.2d 389 (Me. 1989) (admissibility of expert testimony on sexual abuse without reliability)
- State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978) (standard for scientific reliability of expert testimony)
- Ames v. Ames, 2003 ME 60 (Me. 2003) (803(4) statements and medical-diagnosis context)
- Rinehart v. Schubel, 2002 ME 53 (Me. 2002) (weighing expert testimony is the fact-finder's role)
- Ellingwood, 409 A.2d 641 (Me. 1979) (court may draw own conclusions from exposed facts and assumptions)