Ames v. Ames, 2003 ME 60

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of a father’s motion to hold the mother in contempt for noncompliance with court-ordered visitation and affirmed an increase in his child support obligation. The court addressed the admissibility of statements concerning the child’s fear of the father and alleged abuse, the burdens of production and persuasion in a civil contempt proceeding, and the authority to increase and retroactively apply child support based on the mother’s response to the father’s modification motion.

Holdings

1. The child's statements to the licensed clinical social worker that he feared his father and did not want to visit were admissible under Maine Rule of Evidence 803(4) because they were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
2. The evidence of Lavon's pre-divorce abuse was relevant to the cause of the child's fear and was not unfairly prejudicial. The appellate challenges to the relevance and prejudice of Officer Moore's testimony were not preserved because those grounds were not asserted at trial.
3. A moving party establishes a prima facie case of contempt by showing that the alleged contemnor failed to comply with a valid court order that implies the ability to comply. The alleged contemnor then bears the burden of production to present evidence of inability to comply, but the moving party retains the ultimate burden of persuasion.
4. The District Court did not err by considering the child's best interests when deciding whether Crystal's failure to enforce visitation was contemptuous, and it did not give dispositive weight to the child's preference.
5. The issue of increasing Lavon's child-support obligation and applying the increase retroactively was properly before the court because Crystal's response to Lavon's modification motion expressly notified him that an increase, rather than a decrease, might be warranted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court properly admitted testimony concerning the child's statements to his counselor, Crystal's reports of abuse, and recent domestic-dispute complaints involving Lavon.
2. Whether the District Court applied the proper burden of proof in denying contempt based on Crystal's failure to comply with the court-ordered visitation schedule.
3. Whether the District Court could increase Lavon's child-support obligation and apply the increase retroactively when Crystal had not filed a separate Rule 80(k) motion requesting an increase.

Disposition

affirmed