Opinion ID: 6357542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of Events Supporting the Original Order

Text: [¶ 9] The defendant argues that the court's finding of abuse was improperly based solely on evidence of his behavior prior to the original protection order. Specifically, he argues that the court relied on the statements he made regarding killing the plaintiff's boyfriends and his obsessive texts, calls, and controlling behavior-behavior that occurred prior to the issuance of the original protection order-to support the two-year extension of the protection from abuse order. [¶ 10] A court may extend a protection order by agreement of the parties or upon a finding that an extension is necessary to protect the plaintiff or minor child from abuse. 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(2) ; Gehrke v. Gehrke , 2015 ME 58 , ¶18, 115 A.3d 1252 . [¶ 11] When, as here, an extension of an original protection order entered by agreement and without a finding of abuse is sought prior to the expiration date of that original order, the court can grant the extension only when the court finds that, at some point, before or after the original order, there was, in fact, abuse. Dyer v. Dyer , 2010 ME 105 , ¶ 11, 5 A.3d 1049 (explaining that a court may only extend a protection order by agreement of the parties or upon a finding of abuse). That abuse may have occurred before the time of the entry of the agreed-to order when the court specifically determines that, either because of the nature of the abuse or because of additional threats, concerns, or actions, the plaintiff has established that additional time [is] necessary to protect the plaintiff or minor child from abuse. 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(2) ; Dyer , 2010 ME 105 , ¶¶ 3-5, 11, 5 A.3d 1049 (holding that it is proper for a court to consider evidence of earlier abuse and the threat of continuing harm arising out of earlier abuse in extending a protection order); see also Gehrke , 2015 ME 58 , ¶19, 115 A.3d 1252 . 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). Gehrke , 2015 ME 58 , ¶ 19, 115 A.3d 1252 . [¶ 12] In Gehrke , the defendant challenged the court's finding that an extension of a contested protection order was necessary to protect the plaintiff from abuse when there was little evidence of new abusive conduct since the last modification of the order. Id. ¶ 16. We held that a plaintiff seeking an extension need not allege or prove new abuse but must demonstrate that additional time is necessary to protect him or her from abuse. Id. ¶ 18. We noted, in that case, that the evidence of the abuse that supported the original order was essential to understand whether an extension of that order was necessary to protect the plaintiff from abuse. Id. ¶ 20 ; see also Dyer , 2010 ME 105 , ¶ 11, 5 A.3d 1049 . [¶ 13] Here, the plaintiff filed for an extension prior to the expiration of the initial six-month protection order. Therefore, it was proper for the court to consider evidence of the conduct that supported the original order. [¶ 14] Based on evidence that the court found to be credible of the defendant's statements about threatening to kill any boyfriend the plaintiff may have and his obsessive calls, texts and controlling behavior, the court found abuse. The court further found that the plaintiff was fearful and intimated, based, in part, on evidence of the defendant's conduct and inquiries to the plaintiff's friend subsequent to issuance of the original order. That finding supported the determination that the two-year extension was necessary. [¶ 15] Although the court did not make other specific findings, in the absence of a motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52(b), we will infer that the trial court made any necessary findings that would be supported by evidence in the record to support its ultimate conclusion. See Gehrke , 2015 ME 58 , ¶ 8, 115 A.3d 1252 . The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding abuse and extending the protection from abuse order.