Kristin L. Gordon v. Jeffrey M. Cheskin, 2013 ME 113

Parents divorced in Pennsylvania (2005); parties had joint legal custody of two daughters; mother (Gordon) moved to Maine and obtained primary physical custody under a 2006 order.
Father (Cheskin) had subsequent family incidents: 2011 Delaware charges (pleaded guilty to offensive touching; entered Domestic Violence First Offenders Diversion Program with probation; charge later dismissed without a conviction), a consensual protection-from-abuse order (May 2011–May 2012), and a 2012 child welfare investigation after an incident the girls witnessed.
Mother supervised visits during 2011–2012 and in 2012 alleged that after visits the girls returned hungry, with poor hygiene, unexplained bruises, and increased anxiety symptoms; both children began counseling in summer 2012.
Mother filed to modify custody in April 2012 seeking elimination of overnight visits and proposed detailed daytime-only visitation terms; Cheskin opposed only the elimination of overnight visits and submitted no proposed order.
District Court (Belfast) adopted Gordon’s proposed order in full (including no overnight visits) and made detailed factual findings, one of which incorrectly stated Cheskin had been "convicted" of offensive touching.
Cheskin appealed, arguing factual findings were clearly erroneous and the court improperly adopted Gordon’s proposed order verbatim; Gordon conceded the conviction finding was erroneous but argued the error was harmless.

Issue	Gordon's Argument	Cheskin's Argument	Held
Whether trial court’s factual findings (children underfed, poor hygiene, asthma aggravated) were clearly erroneous	Findings supported by testimony and observations; justify limiting contact	Findings lack sufficient evidence or are speculative	Findings supported by competent evidence; not clearly erroneous
Whether court erred by stating Cheskin was "convicted" of offensive touching	Misstatement immaterial; court could consider plea and admissions	Statement was factually incorrect and could affect legal presumptions	Misstatement was clear error but harmless because court could consider plea and testimony and no conviction-based presumption applied
Whether trial court abused discretion by adopting Gordon’s proposed order verbatim	Proposed order reflected appropriate protections; court made independent factual findings	Adoption suggests lack of independent judicial judgment	No abuse: court issued its own detailed findings and applied independent judgment before adopting terms
Whether court provided sufficient findings to eliminate overnight visitation	Limitation was necessary for children’s safety and welfare; daytime visits protect needs	Court failed to make explicit finding of domestic abuse or sufficient basis to eliminate overnights	Sufficient findings supported daytime-only visitation; court not required to find domestic abuse to restrict overnights

Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978 (Me. 1981) (standard for reviewing factual findings and custody decisions)
Blackmer v. Williams, 437 A.2d 858 (Me. 1981) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Jarvis v. Jarvis, 832 A.2d 775 (Me. 2003) (disfavoring verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed order; court must show independent judgment)
In re Allison H., 740 A.2d 997 (Me. 1999) (procedural guidance on proposed orders and judicial responsibility)
Sanders v. Sanders, 711 A.2d 124 (Me. 1998) (harmless-error analysis for misstatements in court orders)