Heidi Vibert v. Antonios N. Dimoulas
159 A.3d 325
| Me. | 2017Background
- Heidi Vibert and Antonios Dimoulas, never married, are parents of two minor children after a long-term, high-conflict relationship.
- After escalating erratic behavior and many law-enforcement contacts by Dimoulas, Vibert fled to New Hampshire with the children in Oct 2014 and filed for a determination of parental rights in Jan 2015.
- An interim order (Aug–Sep 2015) granted shared parental rights and primary residence to Vibert; Dimoulas was ordered to return the children but refused and later removed the children from school without notice, prompting law-enforcement and NH criminal proceedings.
- At the final hearing, the court found Dimoulas’s courtroom demeanor and testimony unreliable, identified a pattern of disparaging Vibert in the children’s presence, and concluded he was unable to co-parent effectively without psychological intervention.
- The District Court awarded Vibert sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary residence; Dimoulas was limited to supervised alternating-weekend contact conditioned on a psychological evaluation and disclosure of its results to Vibert.
- The court also found Dimoulas had willfully disregarded court orders (including nonpayment of support) and ordered him to pay part of Vibert’s attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vibert) | Defendant's Argument (Dimoulas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sole parental rights and primary residence to Vibert served the children's best interests | Awarding Vibert sole rights promotes stability and protects children from father's conduct | Court misweighed evidence; father had improved behavior and court was biased toward Vibert | Affirmed: trial court’s best-interest findings supported by record; no clear error or abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court properly considered and relied on prior violations of court orders | Prior violations show risk to stability and ability to co-parent | Reliance on past misconduct was stale or overstated | Affirmed: past noncompliance and recent conduct supported trial court’s credibility and weight determinations |
| Whether conditioning contact on a psychological evaluation was permitted | Evaluation necessary to protect children’s safety; results relevant to decision-maker (Vibert) | Ordering the evaluation (and disclosure) was an abuse of discretion; NH competency request was stale; confidentiality concerns | Affirmed: trial court acted within broad discretion under best-interest standard; evaluation and disclosure to custodial decision-maker permissible |
| Whether requiring disclosure of the psychological report to Vibert violated confidentiality | Custodial parent with decision-making authority may need evaluation results for children’s welfare | Disclosure invades privacy and should be reviewed in camera by court | Affirmed: disclosure to Vibert reasonable given sole decision-making authority and children’s safety concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. Hamm, 48 A.3d 789 (Me. 2012) (trial court’s fact findings and best-interest review standard; deference to trial court)
- Sloan v. Christianson, 43 A.3d 978 (Me. 2012) (appellate review in parental rights matters; view facts in light most favorable to trial court)
- Bulkley v. Bulkley, 82 A.3d 116 (Me. 2013) (court’s discretion in weighing best-interest factors)
- Verite v. Verite, 151 A.3d 1 (Me. 2016) (permitting psychological evaluation orders in custody context)
- Neudek v. Neudek, 21 A.3d 88 (Me. 2011) (consideration of psychological fitness in parental rights determinations)
- Malenko v. Handrahan, 979 A.2d 1269 (Me. 2009) (upholding evaluation and disclosure when child welfare at issue)
- State v. Connor, 977 A.2d 1003 (Me. 2009) (appellate refusal to reweigh credibility; deference to fact-finder)