Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robertson v. Gerakaris

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

July 9, 2015

SUSAN E. (GERAKARIS) ROBERTSON
v.
ANDREW N. GERAKARIS

Argued: June 18, 2015.

Judgment affirmed.

On the briefs: Richard L. Currier, Esq., and Jon P. Plourde, Esq., Currier and Trask, P.A., Presque Isle, for appellant Andrew N. Gerakaris.

Jessica A. Demers, Esq., Portland, for appellee Susan E. (Gerakaris) Robertson.

At oral argument: Richard L. Currier, Esq., for appellant Andrew N. Gerakaris.

Jessica A. Demers, Esq., for appellee Susan E. (Gerakaris) Robertson.

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Page 740

[¶1] Andrew N. Gerakaris appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Caribou, Soucy, J. ) denying his motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities, granting two motions for contempt filed by Susan E. (Gerakaris) Robertson, and altering the parties' schedule of parent-child contact. Gerakaris argues that the court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights by failing to recuse from the matter. In addition, he argues that the court erred or abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of the parties' two younger children, denying his motion to modify, and awarding attorney fees. We affirm the judgment.

I. CASE HISTORY

[¶2] Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, the following facts are derived from the motion record. See Sloan v. Christianson, 2012 ME 72, ¶ 2, 43 A.3d 978. Gerakaris and Robertson were divorced by a judgment entered in 2006. By agreement of the parties, Robertson was awarded sole parental rights and responsibilities and primary residence of the parties' three children. The parties have a high-conflict post-divorce relationship, and the matter of parental rights and responsibilities has since been reheard on several occasions following a litany of motions to modify filed by Gerakaris and motions for contempt filed by both parties.[1]

[¶3] As of August 2010, the parties were subject to an order of the District Court giving them " parallel, but not fully shared," parental rights and responsibilities. Gerakaris had the right to be fully informed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.