Pat Doe v. Mark Forino, 242 A.3d 1098

May 16, 2019: Doe filed a protection-from-abuse complaint arising from an April 20, 2019 incident, purporting to act individually and on behalf of her three children.
At a June 20, 2019 final hearing the parties, both pro se, waived trial and agreed to an order protecting Doe and her oldest child only; the two younger children were omitted from the final order (they had been functionally dismissed prior to judgment).
Forino initially had bail conditions barring contact with the younger children; those conditions were later amended to allow contact.
After learning of the bail amendment, Doe filed a second protection complaint (Jan 10, 2020) solely on behalf of the two younger children, alleging the same incident as in the first complaint.
At the March 4, 2020 hearing Forino moved to dismiss (res judicata/claim preclusion) and made an oral motion in limine to exclude evidence about the prior complaint; both motions were denied and the court issued a protection order for the two younger children.
On appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding claim preclusion did not bar the second action because the two younger children were not parties to, and were not in privity with parties bound by, the first final order; the court also cautioned against broad application of res judicata in cases involving children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Doe)	Defendant's Argument (Forino)	Held
Whether claim preclusion bars Doe’s second complaint	Second complaint is a new action on behalf of the two younger children after they were excluded from the first final order	Second complaint alleges the same facts and therefore is barred by res judicata/claim preclusion	Denied — claim preclusion fails because the two younger children were not parties to, nor in privity with, the parties covered by the first final order
Whether evidence of allegations in the prior complaint should be excluded (issue preclusion / motion in limine)	Evidence of the prior complaint may be relevant; Doe opposed exclusion	Prior allegations should be excluded under issue preclusion because they were previously raised	Court did not reach merits on issue preclusion on appeal (Forino’s argument was undeveloped); trial court’s in limine denial affirmed

Macomber v. MacQuinn-Tweedie, 834 A.2d 131 (Me. 2003) (sets the three-element test for claim preclusion)
In re M.M., 86 A.3d 622 (Me. 2014) (discusses privity and res judicata when children’s claims are relitigated)
Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989 A.2d 733 (Me. 2010) (defines privity as commonality of ownership, control, and interest)
Dep’t of Human Servs. ex rel. Boulanger v. Comeau, 663 A.2d 46 (Me. 1995) (mother and child not in privity where interests diverged)
In re Kaleb D., 769 A.2d 179 (Me. 2001) (dismissal prior to judgment does not bar relitigation unless dismissal is with prejudice)
Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Wheeler, 132 A.3d 1178 (Me. 2016) (if any claim-preclusion prong fails, relitigation is not barred)
Mehlhorn v. Derby, 905 A.2d 290 (Me. 2006) (perfunctory appellate arguments are deemed waived)
Guardianship of Jewel M., 2 A.3d 301 (Me. 2010) (cautions against strict application of res judicata in domestic and child-related proceedings)