MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 2016 ME 177 Docket: Yor

- 16

- 62 Submitted

On	Briefs: September	29,	2016 Decided: December	6,	2016
Panel: SAUFLEY,	C.J.,	and ALEXANDER , MEAD, GORMAN , JABAR , and HUMPHREY, JJ.

MELODY	BOULETTE

v. RICHARD	BOULETTE	JR

.
JABAR ,	J. [¶1] Richard	Boulette	Jr.	appeals	from	a	judgment	of the District	Court (Biddeford, Driscoll,	 J .)	 amending	 a	 final	 protection	 from	 abuse	 order dated January	25,	2016 , in	favor	of	his	ex

- wife.		For	the	reasons	below,	we	affirm	the lower	 court’s	 judgment ,	 but	 dismiss as	 untimely	 the	 portion	 of	 Richard’s appeal	 addressing	 the temporary	 protection	 from	 abuse	 order	 and	 final protection	from	abuse	order	date d	December	28,	2015,	and	January	11,	2016, respectively. 1

1 Richard’s	 notice	 of	 appeal	 states	 that	 his	 appeal	 is	 taken from	 the	 January	 11	 judgment granting	his	ex

- wife’s	final	protection	from	abuse	order,	and	from	the	“1

- 21

- 16	order,”	presumably the	subsequent	judgment	entered	on	 January	25,	2016 , amending	 the	 final	protection	 from	abuse order.		In	his	brief,	Richard	does not	clearly	state	which	order	in	particular	he	seeks	to	appeal,	but mentions	all	three	without	asking	for	specific	relief.2
I.		BACKGROUND [¶ 2 ] Melody	 and	 Richard	 Boulette	 Jr.	 were	 divorced	 on	 July	 2,	 2015. The	 divorce	 judgment	 granted	 the	 parties	 shared	 parental	 rights	 and responsibilities	and	shared	residence with	re spect	to their	two	sons

. [¶ 3 ] In October	 2015,	 Richard	 filed	 a	 motion	 to	 modify	 the	 divorce judgment,	seeking	primary residence of	the	children. He	alleged	that	Melody was	 trying	 to	 “turn	 the	 children	 against	 [him]	 so	 she	 can	 play	 happy	 family with”	he r boyfriend, who m Richard	did	not	want	around	the	children. [¶ 4 ] On	 December	 28,	 2 015, while	 that	 motion	 was	 pending, Melody sought	 and	 received	 a temporary protection	 from	 abuse	 order,	 granting	 her temporary	 sole parental	 rights	 and	 responsibilities for the	 children. After	 a contested	 hearing on	 January	 11,	 2016 ,	 the	 District	 Court	 (Biddeford, Mathews, J .)	entered	a	 final protection	 from abuse	order that barred Richard from	 having	 contact	 with Melody or	 the	 children “subject to	 a	 future	 family

court action ”

— the	 hearing	 on	 Richard’s	 motion	 to	 modify	 the	 divorce judgment. [¶ 5 ] Eleven	days	later, t he	District	Court	(Biddeford, Driscoll,	J. ) held	a hearing	 on Richard’s	 motion	 to	 modify the	 divorce	 judgment

. After considering	 the	 evidence	 presented,	 the	 court	 issued	 an	 order	 dated3 January 25,	2016 , that	addressed	both	that	motion	and	the	contact	provisions of	th e	protection	from	abuse	order. In	that	order,	t he	court	denied	Richard’s motion	to	modify,	finding that	Richard	had	presented	“no	credible	evidence	to support	 his	 theories	 of	 harm	 or	 reasons	 for	 modifying	 or	 enforcing	 the [divorce]	 judgment.” The	 court	 also	 addressed	 the	 basis	 for	 the	 protection from	 abuse	 order,	 finding	 that	 on	 Christmas	 Eve	 2015,	 Ric hard	 had	 abused Melody	 and	 the	 children	 by	 verbally	 threatening	 Melody,	 banging	 on	 her apartment	door,	and	smashing	several	windows	on	her	car,	all	in	the	presence of	the	children. [¶ 6 ] Despite	 this	 finding,	 based	 on	 the	 agreement	 of	 the	 parties,	 the

co urt	 issued	 an	 amended protection	 from	 abuse	 order that reinstated	 the contact	 schedule	 created	 by	 the	 parties’	 July	 2,	 2015 , divorce	judgment,	 and allowed limited	 contact	 between	 Melody	 and	 Richard consisting	 of email correspondence	concerning	the	children

. On	February	11,	2016,	Richard	filed a	 notice	 of	 appeal	 designating	 the	 order	 of	 January	 11,	 2016,	 as	 the	 order appealed	 from,	 but	 noting	 that	 the	 “1

- 21

- 16	 order	 has	 been	 modified.”
Because it	 is	 not	 clear	 from	 his	 notice	 of	 appeal	 or	 his	 brief	 which	 order Richard now	 appeals	 from ,	 we	 will	 assume	 that	 he	 appeals	 from	 all	 three4 protection order s : the December	28,	2015 , temporary	 order ; the January 11,
2016 , final	protection	order ; and the Jan uary	25,	2016 , amended	orders

. II.		DISCUSSION [¶ 7 ] Richard admits	to	the	events	of	Christmas	Eve	2015	that	led	to	the court’s	finding	of	abuse, but he	argues	that	he	has	taken	responsibility	for	his actions	and	is	not	a	threat	to	his	family ,	and	for	th is	reason	contends	that	the protection	orders	should	not	have	been	entered

. [¶ 8 ] Although	 neither	 party	 raised	 the	 issue	 of	 timeliness,	 we	 will consider	it	on	our	own initiative ,	and	dismiss	those	appeals	determined	to	be untimely

. See State	v.	Williams ,	510	A.2d	537,	538

- 39	(Me.	1986) ; State	v.	One 1977	Blue	Ford	Pick

- Up	Truck ,	447	A.2d	1226,	1229	(Me. 1982) ; Begin	v.	Jerry’s Sunoco,	 Inc. ,	 435	 A.2d	 1079,	 1081	 (Me.	 1981) .	 	 An	 appeal	 is	 untimely	 if the
notice of	appeal is	not	filed	with	the	clerk	of	the	c ourt	from	which	the	appeal	is taken	within	 twenty

- one	 days after the	entry	 of	judgment	and	 the	 court	 has not	granted	an	extension	of	time.		M.R.	App.	P.	2(a),	(b)(3), (b) (5). [¶ 9 ] To the	 extent	 that	 Richard	 appeals	 from	 the	 court’s	 entry	 of Melody’s	 temporary	 protection	 from	 abuse	 order	 on	December	 28,	 2015,	 or the	final	protection	from	abuse	order	entered	on	January	11,	2016,	his	appeal is	untimely.		Richard	did	not	file	his	notice	o f	appeal	until	February	11,	2016,5 more	 than	 twenty

- one	 days	 after	 either	 order	 was	 entered. See M.R. App. P. 2(b)(3). Because	 “[s]trict	 compliance	 with	 the	 time	 limits	 of	 M.R. App. P.	2(b)	.

. .	is	a	prerequisite	to	the	Law	Court	entertaining	an	appeal, ”	we must	dismiss	that	portion	of	Richard’s	appeal	that	seeks	to	vacate	the orders dated	December	28,	2015 , and	January	11,	2016

. Bourke	v.	City	of S. Portland , 2002	ME	155,	¶	4,	806	A.2d	1255 ;	M.R.	App.	P.	2(b) (3)

. [¶1 0 ] To	the	extent	that	Richard inte nds	to appeal	from	the	January	25,
2016 , order amend ing the	 final	 protection	 from	 abuse	 order,	 his	 appeal	 is timely. 2 See M.R.	App.	P.	2(b) (3)

. “We	review	a	trial	court’s	 finding	of	abuse for	clear	error	and	will	affirm	a	trial	court’s	findings	if	they	are	supported	by competent	 evidence	 in	 the	 record,	 even	 if	 the	 evidence	 might	 support alternative	 findings	of	 fact.” Walton	v.	 Ireland ,	2014	ME	13 0,	¶	22,	104	A.3d
883 (quotation	marks	omitted). [¶1 1 ] The District	 Court	 (Biddeford, Ma thews ,	 J .) found after	 the January 11 ,	2016 , hearing that Melody	was	entitled	to	a	protection	from	abuse order

. See 19

- A	 M.R.S.	 §	 4002(1)

. Richard	 did	 not	 timely	 appeal	 from	 that

2 It	is	not	clear	from	Richard’s	brief	what	relief	he	seeks.		He	asserts	that	he	is	not	a	“threat”	to Melody	 or	 his	 children, which	 we	 understand	 to	 argue	 that	 the	 court	 erred	 in	 ordering	 limited contact	between	h im and	Melody. His	notice	of	appeal	included	the	claim	that	Melody’s	time	with the	children	is	“grossly	overboard,”	but	at	the	January	25,	2016 , hearing	he	agreed	to	the	return	of visitation	 rights	 to	 those	 established	 by	 the	 July	 2,	 2015 , divorce	 judgment.	 	 For	 this	 reason,	 we assume	he	appeals	only	that	portion	of	the	amended	order	limiting	his	contact	with	Melody.6 order. After	 the	 January	 25,	 2016 , hearin g,	 the only	 changes	 made	 to	 the protection	from	abuse	order	were	changes	made	by	agreement	of	the	parties, because	neither	party	had	 filed	a	motion	to	amend	the	protection	or der

. We therefore affirm	 the	 ju dgment amending	 the	 final	 protection	 from	 abuse order

. The	entry	is: Richard	 Boulette	 Jr.’s	 appeal	 of	 the	 temporary protection	 fr om	 abuse	 order	 entered December 28,	 2015 , and	 the	 final	 protection from	 abuse	 order	 entered	 Jan uary	 11,	 2016 , is dismissed

. The	 District	 Court’s	 judgment of January	25,	2016, amending	the	protection	from abuse	 order	 entered on January 11 ,	 2016 , is affirmed.

On	the	briefs: Richard	Boulette	Jr.,	appellant	pro	se Melody	Boulette	did	not	file	a	brief

Biddeford	District	Court	docket	number	PA

- 2015

- 600 F OR C LERK R EFE RENCE O NLY