Title: Mayberry v. Janosky
Citation: 2022 ME 37
Docket Number: Wal-21-359
State: Maine
Issuer: Maine Supreme Court
Date: June 23, 2022

Mayberry v. Janosky Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and remanded in part a judgment awarding parental rights and responsibilities entered in the district court as to Father's four children with Mother, holding that the court's judgment failed to include a required statement. The judgment in this case granted Mother sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary physical residence and denied Father rights of parent-child contact. The Supreme Court held (1) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father rights of parent-child contact, and any other error was harmless; and (2) the court's judgment failed to include a required statement governing parental access to records relating to the children. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the matter for the district court to amend the order. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . Opinion Annotation Download PDF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 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.* Reporter of Decisions 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 Primary Holding The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and remanded in part the district court's judgment awarding parental rights and responsibilities as to Father's four children with Mother, holding that the court's judgment failed to include a required statement. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Mayberry v. Janosky Primary Holding The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and remanded in part the district court's judgment award... Read the full annotations for this case. Webinars You Might Like: Please visit individual webinar pages for more information about CLE accreditation.