Case Title: Mayberry v. Janosky

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2022 ME 37

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2022-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
 2022 ME 37 
Docket: 
Wal-21-359 
Submitted 
On Briefs:  May 25, 2022 
Decided: 
 June 23, 2022 
 
Panel: 
 JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE JJ.* 
 
 
MELANIE MAYBERRY 
 
v. 
 
CHARLES JANOSKY II 
 
 
HORTON, J. 
[¶1]  Charles Janosky II appeals from a judgment awarding parental 
rights and responsibilities entered in the District Court (Belfast, Walker, J.) as 
to his four children with Melanie Mayberry.  The judgment grants Mayberry 
sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary physical residence and 
denies Janosky rights of parent-child contact. 
[¶2]  Contrary to Janosky’s contentions, the court did not abuse its 
discretion in determining that it was in the children’s best interests to grant 
Mayberry sole parental rights and responsibilities and to deny Janosky rights 
 
*  Although Chief Justice Stanfill participated in the initial conference, she did not participate 
further in the development of this opinion. 
 
2 
of parent-child contact.1  See Young v. Young, 2015 ME 89, ¶ 5, 120 A.3d 106; 
19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) (2022).  As to Janosky’s contention that the court should 
not have allowed witnesses other than the mother to testify as to the mother’s 
out-of-court statements, see M.R. Evid. 801(d)(2), we conclude that any error 
was harmless and will not disturb the judgment on that basis, see M.R. Civ. P. 61; 
In re Elijah R., 620 A.2d 282, 285 (Me. 1993). 
[¶3]  However, the court’s judgment failed to include a required 
statement governing parental access to records relating to the children.  
See 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(2)(D)(4).  Pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(2)(D)(4), an 
order awarding parental rights and responsibilities must include 
[a] statement that each parent must have access to records and 
information pertaining to a minor child, including, but not limited 
to, medical, dental and school records and other information on 
school activities, whether or not the child resides with the parent, 
unless that access is found not to be in the best interest of the child 
or that access is found to be sought for the purpose of causing 
detriment to the other parent.  If that access is not ordered, the 
court shall state in the order its reasons for denying that access. 
 
1  The court’s judgment thoroughly addressed the extensive history of domestic violence in this 
case but did not refer to section 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(6) (2022), which controls the award of parental 
rights and responsibilities in cases involving domestic abuse.  It is generally good practice for a 
judgment allocating parental rights and responsibilities to reflect the court’s consideration of 
section 1653(6), but the court’s judgment is not inconsistent with that section’s requirements. 
 
3 
We therefore remand this matter for the court to amend the order to satisfy 
section 1653(2)(D)(4).  See Rearick v. Kohout, 2015 ME 159, ¶ 3, 129 A.3d 291.  
We affirm the judgment in all other respects. 
The entry is: 
 
Judgment affirmed.  Remanded to the District 
Court to amend the judgment in conformity with 
19-A M.R.S. § 1653(2)(D)(4) (2022). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stephen C. Smith, Esq., and John E. Baldacci, Jr., Esq., Steve Smith Trial Lawyers, 
Augusta, for Charles Janosky II 
 
Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office 
of the Attorney General, Bangor, for appellee Department of Health of Human 
Services 
 
Maxwell G. Coolidge, Esq., Ellsworth, for appellee Melanie Mayberry 
 
 
Belfast District Court docket number FM-2021-194 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY