Opinion ID: 2799296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Prior Abuse

Text: [¶16] Chad argues that the court erred in relying on any evidence that predated the first protection order entered in this matter in 2012. He argues that the court erred in determining that an extended protection order was “necessary” to protect Jana and the children from abuse, 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(2), when there was little evidence of new conduct since the last modification of the order. [¶17] “A protective order or approved consent agreement is for a fixed period not to exceed 2 years.” Id. “At the expiration of that time, the court may extend an order, upon motion of the plaintiff, for such additional time as it determines necessary to protect the plaintiff or minor child from abuse.” Id. “[A]n extension granted in response to a plaintiff’s motion to extend is the exclusive means to extend a protection order beyond the two-year durational limit.” O’Brien v. Weber, 2012 ME 98, ¶ 9, 48 A.3d 230. [¶18] The findings required for an extension of an existing order of protection differ from the findings required for a court to issue a new order of protection. See 19-A M.R.S. §§ 4002(1), 4005(1), 4007(1), (2) (2014). Whereas a plaintiff bringing a new action must demonstrate “that the defendant has committed the alleged abuse or engaged in the alleged conduct described in section 4005, subsection 1,” id. § 4007(1), a plaintiff seeking to extend an order must 8 demonstrate that the additional time is “necessary to protect the plaintiff or minor child from abuse,” id. § 4007(2). [¶19] When a court’s order of protection has expired, some new conduct meeting the definition of abuse must be shown for the court to issue a new order of protection. See O’Brien, 2012 ME 98, ¶¶ 9-10, 48 A.3d 230. By contrast, when a party, before an order of protection has expired, requests the extension of that order, a court can, and often will, base its determination in part on the underlying reasons that the initial order was entered. See, e.g., Dyer v. Dyer, 2010 ME 105, 5 A.3d 1049. Evidence demonstrating a history of abuse, as defined by statute to include actual or attempted infliction of bodily injury or offensive physical contact, see 19-A M.R.S. § 4002(1)(A), and threats of such conduct made in an attempt to place another in fear of bodily injury, see id. § 4002(1)(B), is relevant and admissible to demonstrate that an extended order of protection is “necessary,” id. § 4007(2). In this context, a court’s consideration of evidence of earlier abuse is appropriate, particularly when preceding orders were entered without the court making particularized factual findings or were entered by agreement of the parties without any finding of abuse. See Dyer, 2010 ME 105, ¶¶ 3-5, 11, 5 A.3d 1049. [¶20] The matter before us stands as a vivid example of a case in which evidence of earlier abuse was essential to the court’s understanding of whether an extension of the order was “necessary to protect the plaintiff or minor child from 9 abuse.” 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(2). Without evidence of the pattern of persistent intrusive and frightening conduct when Chad was allowed access to Jana and the children, the court would not have been in a position to understand why Jana and the children would be frightened by Chad’s more recent behavior. [¶21] Although the evidence of recent conduct might not, taken in isolation, demonstrate that new abuse occurred, see 19-A M.R.S. §§ 4002(1), 4007(1), the record contains ample evidence of a pattern of abuse by Chad supporting the court’s conclusion that an extension of an existing order was necessary for Jana’s and the boys’ protection, see 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(2). Specifically, the record contains evidence that Chad was violent with Jana and at least one of the boys in the past; that he threatened Jana, the children, and himself while in possession of deadly weapons; that he repeatedly violated protection orders; and that Jana and the children remain frightened of him, especially because he recently behaved in ways that continued the pattern of intimidating or threatening conduct. Chad did not offer any evidence that the risk he posed to Jana and the children had diminished. [¶22] Brandishing weapons, threatening suicide, making graphic threats of violence, and persistently violating court orders all demonstrate a serious potential for lethality. See 19-A M.R.S. § 4001(1) (recognizing that such conduct “frequently culminates in intrafamily homicide”). Given this evidentiary record, 10 the court did not err in finding that Chad’s recent actions, viewed in context, demonstrate a continued threat of abuse, and that continued protection is necessary. See id.; see also Walton v. Ireland, 2014 ME 130, ¶ 22, 104 A.3d 883; O’Brien, 2012 ME 98, ¶ 9 & n.2, 48 A.3d 230. B. Constitutionality of Intrusion on Parental Rights [¶23] Chad argues that, to safeguard his constitutionally protected parental rights, any restructuring of his rights of contact with the boys should have been undertaken in the divorce proceeding, not through a protection from abuse complaint. Accordingly, we must determine whether the order of extension entered here comported with the purposes of the protection from abuse statute in allocating “temporary parental rights and responsibilities” for purposes of protection from abuse. 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(1)(G); see 19-A M.R.S. § 4001 (2014) (identifying statutory purposes of protection from abuse statutes). [¶24] “The law is firmly established that parents have a fundamental liberty interest to direct the care, custody, and control of their children.” Griffin v. Griffin, 2014 ME 70, ¶ 26, 92 A.3d 1144 (quotation marks omitted). Consistent with this legal principle, we presume that fit parents act in the best interests of their children, and due process requires that any interference with parental interests pass the strict-scrutiny test. Pitts v. Moore, 2014 ME 59, ¶¶ 11-12, 90 A.3d 1169. That test 11 “requires that the State’s action be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Id. ¶ 12 (quotation marks omitted). [¶25] The protection from abuse statutes permit a court, upon a finding of abuse, to temporarily infringe on parental discretion over the care and custody of a child. See 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(1)(G). The Legislature authorized this interference in recognition of “domestic abuse as a serious crime against the individual and society, producing an unhealthy and dangerous family environment, resulting in a pattern of escalating abuse, including violence, that frequently culminates in intrafamily homicide and creating an atmosphere that is not conducive to healthy childhood development.” 19-A M.R.S. § 4001(1); see id. § 4007(1). The protection from abuse process serves to “support the efforts of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judicial officers to provide immediate, effective assistance and protection for victims of abuse and to recognize the crucial role of law enforcement officers in preventing further incidents of abuse and in assisting the victims of abuse.” Id. § 4001(4).3 [¶26] When a party has established abuse pursuant to the statutory definition of that term, see id. § 4002(1), the State has a “compelling interest” in limiting or restricting a parent’s rights, because harm or a threat of harm to the 3 See generally Maine Domestic Abuse Homicide Review Panel, 10th Report, Building Bridges Towards Safety and Accountability to End Domestic Violence Homicide (April 2014). 12 child will result from the absence of such governmental interference. Sparks v. Sparks, 2013 ME 41, ¶¶ 21-22, 65 A.3d 1223. As we have held before, the statute survives strict scrutiny because it is narrowly tailored to authorize relief only when the person bringing the petition is a person who is responsible for the child, there has been a finding of abuse as that term is specifically defined by statute, and the rights awarded are temporary. See id. ¶¶ 23-26. [¶27] Here, based on findings reached after a full evidentiary hearing, the court ordered an extension of two years. Although the order results in an intrusion on Chad’s parental rights, both the statutory scheme and the particular order entered here are narrowly tailored to serve the State’s interest of protecting children from abuse and harm. The extended order is not final but instead modifiable if the circumstances change, and unlike a parental rights and responsibilities judgment, see 19-A M.R.S. § 1653 (2014), the provisions of the order are limited in duration, here to two additional years, and are enforceable by law enforcement, see 19-A M.R.S. § 4011 (2014), which is necessary in a case where threats of lethal conduct have been made in the presence of firearms. Chad has not been deprived of due process by the application of section 4007(2) of the protection from abuse statute in these circumstances. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 13 On the briefs: Walter F. McKee, Esq., and James A. Billings, Esq., McKee Billings, LLC, P.A., Augusta, for appellant Chad Gehrke Paul Sumberg, Esq., Wright & Mills, P.A., Skowhegan, for appellee Jana Gehrke At oral argument: James A. Billings, Esq., for appellant Chad Gehrke Lawrence Bloom, Esq., Bloom & Bloom, Skowhegan, for appellee Jana Gehrke Skowhegan District Court docket number PA-2012-271 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY