Opinion ID: 4116907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tucker’s Motion to Terminate Visitation

Text: [¶13] Tucker appeals from the order denying her motion to terminate Ard’s court-ordered rights of contact with Isabella until counselors could determine whether contact with Ard was in Isabella’s best interest following the report of an assault. [¶14] “When an order of the Probate Court is appealed, we defer to the Probate Court on factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” Estate of Greenblatt, 2014 ME 32, ¶ 12, 86 A.3d 1215 (quotation marks omitted). As the moving party, Tucker had the burden of proof in the trial court, and therefore she must demonstrate on appeal “that a contrary finding is compelled by the evidence.” Dickens v. Boddy, 2015 ME 81, ¶ 12, 119 A.3d 722. [¶15] The court summarily denied Tucker’s motion. In the absence of a motion for findings of fact, see M.R. Civ. P. 52(a),5 we assume that the court “found all of the facts needed to support its decision if those facts are supported by competent evidence.” Gray v. TD Bank, N.A., 2012 ME 83, ¶ 15, 45 A.3d 735 (citing Sutherland v. Morrill, 2008 ME 6, ¶¶ 4-5, 940 A.2d 192). Further, because Tucker has not provided a complete transcript of the hearing that resulted in the order from which she appeals, we will assume that the 5 Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 52 applies in Probate Court proceedings. M.R. Prob. P. 52. 8 court’s inferred findings “are supported by sufficient competent evidence in the record.” Springer v. Springer, 2009 ME 118, ¶ 8, 984 A.2d 828. [¶16] Under these circumstances, we can find no error in the court’s factual determinations and will not disturb its denial of Tucker’s motion.