2018 ME 101
Me.2018Background
- Plaintiff (Jane Doe) obtained a temporary protection from abuse order in Feb 2017 that included an explicit firearms prohibition; parties then agreed to a six‑month protective order in March 2017 without a finding of abuse and without a firearms prohibition.
- Plaintiff moved to extend the agreed order in Aug 2017, alleging continued stalking, with affidavit describing efforts by defendant (Timothy Tierney) to learn her location and contacts.
- Court modified the order in Oct 2017 to change the work‑location restriction and served defendant.
- Contested extension hearing held Nov 3, 2017; plaintiff and witnesses testified about past threats (including threats to kill her boyfriends), obsessive calls/texts, controlling behavior, and post‑order inquiries to a friend. Defendant testified and called one witness.
- Trial court found the plaintiff credible and that defendant had abused her, extended the protection order for two years, and entered an explicit prohibition on defendant’s possession of firearms. Defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could rely on pre‑order conduct to support extension | Gehrke/Dyer allow history of abuse to show necessity for extension | Court erred by relying on conduct that preceded the agreed original order | Court affirmed: court may consider earlier abuse when extension sought before expiration and a finding of abuse is required |
| Whether defendant received adequate notice of issues at extension hearing | Motion, affidavit, statute, and prior temporary order provided notice | Defendant lacked notice that pre‑order conduct and firearms prohibition could be considered | Court affirmed: defendant had notice, was present, litigated, and did not object to scope |
| Whether evidence supported two‑year extension | Plaintiff argued credible testimony and witnesses showed ongoing risk and need for extended protection | Defendant argued insufficient new conduct to justify extension and firearms ban | Court affirmed: findings supported by competent evidence; extension for two years appropriate |
| Validity of explicit firearms prohibition | Plaintiff sought explicit firearms prohibition consistent with 19‑A M.R.S. §4007 and federal law | Defendant argued lack of notice and that prohibition was prejudicial | Court held explicit prohibition valid and harmless because identical prohibition would follow by operation of federal law from the order’s stalking/threat provisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Gehrke v. Gehrke, 115 A.3d 1252 (Me. 2015) (prior abuse evidence is relevant to whether extended protection is necessary)
- Dyer v. Dyer, 5 A.3d 1049 (Me. 2010) (court may consider earlier abuse when extending an agreed order)
- Walton v. Ireland, 104 A.3d 883 (Me. 2014) (appellate review of abuse finding is for clear error; affirm if supported by competent evidence)
- Guardianship of Hughes, 715 A.2d 919 (Me. 1998) (two‑step procedural due process analysis: deprivation and required process)
- Kirkpatrick v. City of Bangor, 728 A.2d 1268 (Me. 1999) (notice and opportunity to be heard are essential elements of procedural due process)
- State v. Goodenow, 65 Me. 30 (Me. 1876) (ignorance of the law is no excuse)