Argued: November 5, 2014.
On the briefs: Amy L. Fairfield, Esq., Fairfield & Associates, Lyman, for appellant, Eve Sotiriou.
Teresa M. Cloutier, Esq., Lambert Coffin, Portland, for appellee, Cynthia Stacey-Sotiriou.
At oral argument: Janette M. Durham, Esq., Fairfield & Associates, Lyman, for appellant, Eve Sotiriou.
Teresa M. Cloutier, Esq., for appellee, Cynthia Stacey-Sotiriou.
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.
[¶1] In this appeal we review the careful and thorough work of the District Court, which fully considered the parties' claims and fulfilled its duty to decide the issues respecting the best interest of the child. The court kept its focus on the best interest of the child despite ill-advised actions of one parent tat could have invited a more summary disposition and less contact between that parent and the child.
[¶2] Eve A. Sotiriou appeals from a judgment entered in the District Court (Lewiston, Lawrence, J.) finding a substantial change of circumstances and amending an earlier order governing parental rights and responsibilities to award primary residence of the child to Cynthia Stacey-Sotiriou while allowing Eve to have unsupervised visits with the child. Previously, the court had granted Cynthia's motion for relief from judgment, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b), to vacate a parental rights order that Cynthia had agreed to as a precondition for Eve's return to the country with the child.
[¶3] On appeal, Eve contends that the court erred in granting Cynthia's motion for relief from judgment and Cynthia's motion to modify the judgment, and that the court erred in not finding that Cynthia had committed fraud upon the court by seeking relief from an order that she had agreed to as a precondition for Eve returning to the country with the child. Eve also contends that the court erred and abused its discretion in ...