In re Paige L.
2017 Me. LEXIS 101
Me.2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2013 with an existing shared parental rights order; mother had primary physical residence and father had weekend contact. A protection-from-abuse order against father was entered in 2013.
- In October 2015 DHHS filed a child protection petition alleging Paige was in jeopardy with her father due to his history of abuse and because his new wife (a registered sex offender) was a caregiver; a preliminary protection order awarded custody to mother and barred unsupervised contact by father.
- A two-day jeopardy hearing under 22 M.R.S. § 4035 was held in Feb 2016 with testimony (including child statements) and documentary evidence.
- The court issued a dispositional order dismissing the child protection case and, pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4036(1-A), amended the preexisting 19-A parental rights order to award sole parental rights to the mother and supervised contact to the father. The amended order itself contained little factual detail.
- Father moved for findings and to amend; the court provided detailed post-judgment findings in the child protection docket finding father created jeopardy and describing what would qualify as a significant change of circumstances for future relief. Father appealed the jeopardy order (but did not file a separate appeal in the family docket).
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State/Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child hearsay and other hearsay evidence at the jeopardy hearing | Hearing relied on inadmissible child hearsay that could not be used to modify a 19-A order | 22 M.R.S. allows admission/use of child out-of-court statements in child protection (title 22) hearings and those findings can inform a 19-A disposition under §4036(1-A) | Court affirmed: child hearsay admissible in title 22 jeopardy hearing and may be relied on for a §4036(1-A) parental-rights disposition |
| Consideration of prior incidents predating last parental-rights order | Court improperly relied on incidents before the last modification | Historical conduct is relevant to prospective jeopardy and best interests | Court affirmed: past conduct may be considered to assess ongoing/prospective jeopardy and best interests |
| Clarity of what constitutes a future "substantial change of circumstances" | Amended family-docket order was ambiguous and court erred by explaining criteria only in child-protection docket | Court’s detailed post-judgment findings and guidance in the child-protection docket sufficiently clarified expectations | Court affirmed: guidance in the child-protection findings was adequate to define what would be a significant change |
| Procedural mechanism to amend preexisting 19-A order via §4036(1-A) and appealability | Court should have opened a new family matter under §4036(1-A)(A) and father’s failure to appeal the 19-A docket precludes review of that amended order | Statute permits either opening a new family matter or amendment of a preexisting 19-A order; because father timely appealed the title 22 jeopardy order the Law Court will review both the jeopardy findings and the §4036(1-A) disposition, but going forward parents must appeal both dockets | Court affirmed the amended parental-rights disposition and cautioned future litigants to file appeals in both the title 22 and title 19-A dockets when challenging such orders |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nicholas S., 140 A.3d 1226 (Me. 2016) (standard for jeopardy findings and evidentiary support)
- In re Kayla S., 772 A.2d 858 (Me. 2001) (title 22 permits admission and consideration of child out-of-court statements)
- In re Jacob C., 965 A.2d 47 (Me. 2009) (statutory scheme construed holistically to permit title 22 findings to inform title 19-A dispositions)
- In re E.A., 114 A.3d 207 (Me. 2015) (historical behavior relevant to prospective jeopardy)
- In re E.L., 96 A.3d 691 (Me. 2014) (past conduct can inform present risk assessment)
- Aranovitch v. Versel, 127 A.3d 542 (Me. 2015) (when modifying custody, court may consider pre-order events for context if relevant to best interests)
- Nadeau v. Nadeau, 957 A.2d 108 (Me. 2008) (trial court not required to recite every best-interest factor to justify custody decision)
- In re Melissa T., 791 A.2d 98 (Me. 2002) (appeal must be taken in the docket where the challenged order issued)
- Costa v. Vogel, 777 A.2d 827 (Me. 2001) (procedural rules for appeals between dockets)
- Town of Mount Desert v. Smith, 751 A.2d 445 (Me. 2000) (timely cross-appeal requirements between trial and appellate dockets)