Opinion ID: 1995678
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Probate Court's Factual Findings

Text: [¶ 14] The father argues that the Probate Court's key findings in support of its conclusion that a temporarily intolerable living situation existed are clearly erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when (1) no competent evidence supporting the finding exists in the record; (2) the fact-finder clearly misapprehends the meaning of the evidence; or (3) the force and effect of the evidence, taken as a whole, rationally persuades us to a certainty that the finding is so against the great preponderance of the believable evidence that it does not represent the truth and right of the case. Wells v. Powers, 2005 ME 62, ¶ 2, 873 A.2d 361, 363. We address each of the court's four findings individually.
[¶ 15] The record establishes that the mother and the father had signed an agreement to modify the divorce judgment on the day of the guardianship hearing, but that neither party had filed a motion to amend the family matter judgment, and the agreed-to order had not yet been submitted to the District Court. [4] The record therefore supports the court's finding that there was no court order in effect granting the father the right to Jewel's primary residential care.
[¶ 16] Contrary to the father's contention, the record contains significant evidence supporting the court's conclusion that the father had had limited and inconsistent contact with Jewel. The father stopped seeing Jewel sometime around Christmas 2007 and did not resume visitation with her until August 2008. Although the father enjoyed substantial contact with Jewel for a six-week period in August and September 2008, the record establishes that he did not visit with Jewel again after this six-week period until a visitation schedule was established, as memorialized in a court order dated April 1, 2009. Additionally, the GAL reported that Jewel's therapist still has questions about if [the father] can commit long term and [i]f [the child] is rushed in her placement with [the father], [she] will go quiet and will be retraumatized and . . . will continue to live in fear. Thus, the therapist recommended a slow and steady transition to [the] father's home due to these concerns. In its decision, the court cited the therapist's opinion that a sudden shift to residence with [the father] would be traumatic to Jewel. The court's findings that the father had had limited and inconsistent contact with Jewel and that a sudden shift in her residence would be traumatic for her were not erroneous, and these findings, in and of themselves, were a sufficient basis for the court to order that the guardianship be extended to allow Jewel's placement to be transferred in a safe and reasonable fashion.
[¶ 17] The father testified at the hearing that he had been unable to find a therapist for Jewel in his area, and that the Department informed him that Jewel would need to be on his insurance plan before they could locate a provider for her. This evidence supports the court's conclusion that the father had not found a qualified therapist for Jewel in his area at the time of the hearing. Although this finding, considered in isolation, might not support a court concluding that a temporarily intolerable living situation exists under the unique circumstances of this case, it was certainly relevant to the overall determination of that question.
[¶ 18] The evidence in the record indicates that the father has had at least three arrests related to substance use, including two arrests for possession of marijuana and one arrest for operating under the influence. Early in the proceedings, the father had declined to take a hair follicle drug test when the GAL requested one, explaining that he did not have a primary care physician and could not afford the test. The GAL agreed that a random urine test would suffice. The father purchased a test kit, was prepared to take it, and on several occasions he offered to take the test only to be told that the timing was not random enough. Consequently, a urine test was never completed. The GAL ultimately reported to the court that there was no evidence that the father was currently using drugs or had a drug problem. [¶ 19] In its judgment, the Probate Court found that there was no evidence that his OUI conviction represents a pattern of behavior for [the father], nor is there evidence that he has a substance abuse issue. The court found that the father was attending school to be an Emergency Medical Technician, he has a job in place for when he graduates, and that he will be required to submit to drug testing in order to maintain his position as an EMT. The court also noted as part of its findings that the GAL had concluded that there is no evidence that the father is currently using drugs or has a drug problem. [¶ 20] Notwithstanding the preceding findings related to the absence of proof of a substance abuse problem, the court determined that a temporarily intolerable living situation existed as to the father because of his failure to establish through hair follicle testing that he is drug-free. This finding cannot be reconciled with the court's other findings or with the total body of evidence. We thus conclude that the court erred in its implicit determination that the evidence established a need for the father to prove through hair follicle testing that he was drug-free. We modify the order by striking this erroneous finding.