Sloan v. Christianson
2012 ME 72
| Me. | 2012Background
- Sloan and Christianson were divorced; their son was six years old at issue.
- 2007: Christianson filed for protection from abuse; court dismissed after finding no abuse.
- 2008 divorce judgment awarded Sloan shared rights, Christianson primary residence, Sloan unsupervised visitation when not working.
- 2010–2011: renewed protection orders; evidence of fear of Sloan in the son and allegations of abuse surfaced.
- Guardian ad litem appointed; later findings credited that Christianson coached the son to fear Sloan.
- 2011: court granted Sloan sole parental rights, primary residence, and required supervised visitation; Christianson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the son coached to fear Sloan? | Christianson alleges guardian found coaching; argues fear is genuine. | Court properly found coaching and lack of substantiated abuse evidence. | Yes; substantial evidence supports coaching and absence of proven abuse. |
| Did Sloan abuse Christianson or the son? | She alleged abusive conduct over years; seeks recognition of abuse. | Evidence does not prove abuse; prior PFA dismissed; claims unsubstantiated. | No; findings support absence of proven abuse by Sloan. |
| Was the custody/residency modification proper? | Christianson maintains no substantial change in circumstances; she is a good parent. | There was a substantial change; best interests favor Sloan’s sole custody and residence. | Yes; modification to Sloan was proper and in the son's best interests. |
| Did the guardian ad litem's credibility support the court's findings? | Guardian credibility questioned; reports incomplete. | Court properly weighed guardian testimony and other evidence. | Yes; findings supported by guardian and other evidence. |
| Are the court's findings thorough and accurate? | Judgment allegedly lacks thorough consideration of evidence. | Judgment is thorough; not every piece of admitted evidence must be discussed. | Yes; findings were thorough and properly reasoned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Desmond v. Desmond, 2011 ME 57 (Me. 2011) (clear-error standard for post-divorce modification findings; discretion review)
- Hatch v. Anderson, 2010 ME 94 (Me. 2010) (abuse/child custody modification framework; standard of review)
- Cloutier v. Lear, 1997 ME 35 (Me. 1997) (substantial change in circumstances required for custody modification)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 604 A.2d 33 (Me. 1992) (best interests factors in custody decisions)
- Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15 (Me. 2011) (court may reject expert characterization of evidence; credibility is fact-finder prerogative)
- State v. Gurney, 2012 ME 14 (Me. 2012) (evidence review and appellate deference to trial court findings)
- Greaton v. Greaton, 2012 ME 17 (Me. 2012) (record adequacy; appellate consideration of evidence not admitted at trial)
- Dumas v. State, 2010 ME 57 (Me. 2010) (record-based appellate limitations and evidentiary consideration)
- Tomer v. Me. Human Rights Comm'n, 2008 ME 190 (Me. 2008) (administrative matter review standards; evidentiary treatment on appeal)
- Pelletier v. Pelletier, 2012 ME 15 (Me. 2012) (evidentiary standard and appellate review of custody rulings)