Opinion ID: 4514238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Parental Rights Proceedings

Text: [¶3] On February 12, 2007, the court (Romei, J.) entered an order establishing parental rights and responsibilities between the father and the mother of the older child, granting primary residence and sole parental rights and responsibilities of the child to the mother and allowing the father supervised visits with the child on certain days. The father visited with the child pursuant to this order until August 2018, when the mother stopped visitation between the father and the older child.1 [¶4] On September 12, 2018, the father filed a motion for contempt against the mother, alleging that the mother had violated the 2007 parental rights order by not allowing supervised visitation between the father and the child. Later, on December 12, 2018, the father also filed a motion to modify the terms of the 2007 parental rights order, requesting that further visitation be allowed. After a hearing was held on the motion for contempt on 1The court found that, in August 2018, there were allegations made by a friend of the parents that the father had assaulted her. The court also found that information about the allegation was referred to the Department, a local police department, and the Maine State Police, although no charges were ever brought, and that neither child was aware of the allegation until sometime after. Each mother stopped visitation between the father and the children after this allegation in August 2018. 3 January 7, 2019, the court (Rushlau, J.) granted the father’s motion and found that the mother had failed to comply with the 2007 parental rights order. The court awarded the father additional visitation time with his child each weekend, in addition to the visitation schedule in the 2007 parental rights and responsibilities order. The court did not reach the motion to modify at that time.
[¶5] On January 13, 2011, the court (Langner, M.) entered a divorce judgment between the father and the mother of the younger child, granting shared rights and responsibilities and placing primary residence of the child with the mother. On March 13, 2012, the schedule of contact between the father and the child was further modified by agreement. [¶6] On July 18, 2013, the Department filed a petition for a child protection order, alleging that the younger child was in circumstances of jeopardy, in part, because of the father’s “controlling behaviors” and the father’s constantly “speaking negatively” about the mother. On October 15, 2013, the court (D. Mitchell, J.) entered a jeopardy order,2 which placed 2We later affirmed this order after an appeal by the father. See In re L.E., Mem-14-92 (July 3, 2014). 4 custody of the child with the mother, and, on May 20, 2014, entered a judicial review order. [¶7] On May 11, 2016, the court entered an order amending the 2011 divorce judgment between the father and the mother of the younger child, finding that, although the parents continued to have difficulty co-parenting, the parents “shall continue to share parental rights and responsibilities.” The court also amended the schedule for contact between the father and child. As a result, the court found that the parameters of the amended divorce judgment would alleviate jeopardy and dismissed the 2013 child protection matter. [¶8] Nearly two years later, on May 16, 2018, the father filed a motion to enforce the contact schedule in the 2016 amended divorce judgment. The father alleged that the mother had not allowed contact between him and the younger child and requested that the court enforce the contact schedule as agreed to in 2016. On that same day, the mother filed a motion to modify the 2016 amended divorce judgment, alleging, in part, that the existing contact schedule had caused “anxiety issues” for the child. The mother also requested that the judgment be modified to allow her sole decision-making authority 5 over the child’s mental health counseling, and for the child’s counselor to recommend a schedule for contact between the father and the child. [¶9] On May 22, 2018, the court entered an agreed-to interim order in which the mother and the father agreed to certain conditions regarding the child’s counseling and the schedule for contact between the father and child. The court did not enter judgment on the pending May 16, 2018, motions. Later, on January 22, 2019, the father filed a motion for contempt against the mother, alleging that the mother had failed to comply with the contact schedule as ordered in both the 2016 divorce judgment and the May 22, 2018, interim order.3
[¶10] On March 28, 2019, the court continued the hearings on the May 16, 2018, motions and the father’s January 22, 2019, motion regarding the younger child, and set the matters to be heard at the same time as recently filed petitions for child protective orders regarding both children.4 The court later, over the father’s objection, consolidated the hearings on the father’s 3 The mother of the younger child had stopped visitation between the father and the child, in part, because of the alleged assault in August 2018. See supra n.1. 4Petitions for child protection orders for both the older child and the younger child were filed on March 27, 2019, one day prior to the court’s order consolidating the hearings on the pending motions with the hearing on the child protection petition. See infra I.B. 6 pending December 12, 2018, motion to modify with the child protection petition regarding the older child. Between May 9, 2019, and July 9, 2019, the court held a series of five hearings on the pending motions and the child protection petitions, throughout which, among others, the father, each mother, and each child testified. [¶11] On August 19, 2019, the court entered judgment on the pending motions in the parental rights proceedings. The court granted the father’s motion to modify the 2007 parental rights order regarding the older child, but it did not grant the relief the father requested. Rather, the court continued sole parental rights and responsibilities with the mother and ordered that the father’s visitation with the older child be resumed when “therapeutically recommended.” [¶12] Regarding the younger child, the court granted the mother’s motion to modify, ordering, in part, that the father have contact with the younger child on “one day per weekend for a period of 2 hours” under the supervision of an agency or “trained neutral professional” and that this arrangement continue for six weeks, after which “upon recommendation of the child’s therapist, [the father’s] contact may be extended.” Additionally, the court denied the father’s motion for contempt and motion to enforce, finding 7 that the father had failed to carry his burden on either motion. The court determined that, in light of the history of parental contact and the anxiety it caused the child, it was not unreasonable for the mother of the younger child to cease contact between the father and the child, and that the authority to make this decision was granted to the mother in the 2016 amended divorce judgment. [¶13] The father timely appealed from each order on September 3, 2019. See 14 M.R.S. § 1901 (2018); 19-A M.R.S. § 104 (2018); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).