Opinion ID: 2779042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶2] Hutchinson and Christina A. Bruyere are the parents of a child born on November 6, 2007. In May 2012, pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the District Court (Cadwallader, M.) issued a judgment establishing shared parental rights and responsibilities and shared primary physical residence of their child. 2 Nearly a year later, on April 2, 2013, Hutchinson filed a motion to modify and a motion for contempt, alleging that Bruyere violated the judgment when she relocated without informing him. A consolidated hearing was held on the motions in December 2013. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court orally issued a partial order addressing some aspects of Hutchinson’s motions but reserved decision on several remaining points, which it adjudicated in a written supplemental order issued in April 2014. The effect of the orders was to grant Hutchinson’s motions in part and to deny them in part. In its written order, the court stated: At the close of the hearing the court issued an oral decision as to both motions, including detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and specific orders for relief, which are specifically incorporated by reference herein. This written decision is issued to supplement and memorialize the oral decision of the court. To the extent there is any conflict between this written decision and the prior oral decision of the court, the terms and provisions of this written order shall govern and control the rights of the parties. (Footnotes omitted). [¶3] Hutchinson filed a notice of appeal, accompanied by a completed transcript order form on which he indicated that he would pay for the transcript privately. Hutchinson, however, did not make the required payment, and for that reason the Office of Transcript Operations canceled the transcript. 3 See M.R App. P. 5(b)(2)(B).1 Hutchinson filed an appendix to his brief on appeal, see M.R. App. P. 8, but it included only the court’s April 2014 written order. [¶4] In his brief, Hutchinson argues that the record does not support the court’s decision on his motions and that his attorney did not adequately represent him at the motion hearing.