Huda D. Daud v. Badal H. Abdullahi, 115 A.3d 77

Background

On April 24, 2014, Huda D. Daud filed a protection-from-abuse complaint against Badal H. Abdullahi and obtained a temporary protection order; a full hearing was scheduled for May 9, 2014.
Abdullahi was served on May 1 and attended the May 9 hearing unrepresented; Daud was represented by counsel.
At the start of the hearing Abdullahi orally requested a continuance, saying he had contacted an attorney two days earlier who did not appear. No attorney had entered an appearance for him.
The District Court (Carlson, J.) denied the continuance, proceeded with the hearing, found Abdullahi had abused Daud (including acts in the children’s presence), issued a protection order, granted Daud temporary custody, and restricted Abdullahi’s contact with the children pending counseling.
Abdullahi appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by denying his continuance request and that denial prejudiced his parental rights and due process.

Issues

Issue	Daud’s Argument	Abdullahi’s Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance when Abdullahi’s retained attorney did not appear	The continuance was unnecessary because Abdullahi had 8 days’ notice and no appearance by counsel; denial was within discretion	Denial was error because he reasonably expected counsel to appear and needed counsel to defend parental rights	Court did not abuse discretion; no counsel had appeared and Abdullahi had adequate time to retain counsel
Whether denial of continuance was fundamentally unfair given parental rights at stake	Expedited protection proceedings justify denying continuance where movant had notice and time	Denial was prejudicial because temporary limits on custody and contact implicate fundamental liberty interests	Denial not fundamentally unfair: protection orders are temporary, statute favors expeditious hearings, plenary RPR proceedings available
Whether proceeding without counsel violated due process	No specific due-process challenge advanced; statute and precedent do not guarantee counsel in these proceedings	Proceeding unrepresented deprived him of meaningful opportunity to be heard	No due-process violation: there is no right to counsel in protection-from-abuse hearings and Abdullahi had time to prepare
Whether lack of language fluency undermined fairness	Daud noted no language barrier evident	Abdullahi claimed difficulty understanding proceedings	Record showed substantial fluency in English; court need not address hypothetical language-based due-process claim

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1995) (review of reasons offered in support of continuance request)
Christensen-Towne v. Dorey, 802 A.2d 1010 (Me. 2002) (party seeking continuance must show substantial reason that furthering justice requires it)
In re Trever I., 973 A.2d 752 (Me. 2009) (denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Provenzano v. Deloge, 755 A.2d 549 (Me. 2000) (denial of continuance where party needed more time to secure funds for counsel not an abuse)
Pelletier v. Pelletier, 597 A.2d 60 (Me. 1991) (sufficient notice supports denial of continuance)
State v. Dube, 87 A.3d 1219 (Me. 2014) (discretion must be exercised with fairness; denial cannot prejudice movant’s substantial rights)
Rideout v. Riendeau, 761 A.2d 291 (Me. 2000) (parental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of children)
Hatch v. Anderson, 4 A.3d 904 (Me. 2010) (no right to counsel in protection-from-abuse hearings despite effects on visitation)
Meyer v. Meyer, 414 A.2d 236 (Me. 1980) (no right to counsel in visitation-termination proceedings)