Capelety v. Estes

300 A.3d 817

2023 ME 50

Nicholas J. CAPELETY

v.Kyla R. ESTES

Docket: Oxf-22-138

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted On Briefs: October 19, 2022

Decided: August 15, 2023

Ashley T. Perry, Esq., Sanders, Hanstein & Carey, P.A., Farmington, for appellant Nicholas J. Capelety

Kyla R. Estes, appellee pro se

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ.^*

JABAR, J.

[¶1] Nicholas J. Capelety appeals from a judgment entered by the District Court (South Paris, Ham-Thompson, J .), in which the court allocated parental rights regarding the parties’ child and granted primary residence to Kyla R. Estes and defined rights of contact to Capelety. See 14 M.R.S. § 1901 (2023) ; 19-A M.R.S. § 104(2023) ; M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(2). Capelety contends on appeal that the court improperly restricted his ability to present his case by (1) imposing a time limit on his trial presentation that resulted in his being unable to cross-examine the guardian ad litem (GAL), (2) excluding certain of his proposed exhibits, (3) permitting certain testimony from the GAL, and (4) denying his request to present a closing argument. He also challenges portions of the court's judgment as unsupported by the evidence. We conclude that any error was harmless and affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] Capelety and Estes have a child who was born in 2015. Capelety filed a complaint for determination of parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support in the District Court on September 9, 2020. On Capelety's motion, a Family Law Magistrate (Spooner, M. ) appointed a GAL. The GAL provided recommendations to the parties in January 2021 and submitted a final report in July 2021. On May 28, 2021, the same Family Law Magistrate issued a pretrial order indicating that the final hearing of the case would take one day.¹ Neither party objected to the pretrial order. The court (Rumford, Ham-Thompson, J. ) held the final hearing on November 16, 2021. The hearing occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore, some of the parties and witnesses appeared by video or phone.

[¶3] Although the final hearing was scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m., it did not start until 9:26 a.m. because the parties, with the trial court's approval, chose to engage in a last-minute settlement discussion that proved unproductive.

[¶4] At the beginning of the evidentiary portion of the hearing, the court explained, "The time will be equally divided between the parties, with the Court reserving one hour for the [GAL]. So that's time equally divided for direct and cross, so use your time wisely." Neither party lodged an objection or asked how many hours and minutes they would be allotted.

[¶5] Capelety presented four witnesses who were acquaintances or friends. Estes, who was representing herself, and the GAL were given the opportunity to cross-examine the first four witnesses; Estes cross-examined three of the witnesses, and the GAL cross-examined one witness.

[¶6] After Capelety had presented the testimony of his third witness, Estes asked the court, "How much time with the witnesses do they get, and then do I get ... ?" The court responded, "[I]t's evenly divided between the two of you—I'm keeping track of the time right now. And when we resume at 1:00, I'll break it down and let you know how much time everyone has. But clearly, at this time, [Capelety] is using the bulk of the time."

[¶7] The trial court then heard testimony from Capelety, whose testimony ended just before the noon break. At this point in the proceedings, the trial court indicated to Capelety that he had used up all his time and would not be able to cross-examine Estes or the GAL. During Capelety's direct testimony, the court broke in to note for his attorney,

And then just so you're aware, ... for the first four witnesses, you used 46 minutes. You're now an hour seven minutes into Mr. Capelety. And so you're closely running out of time. I'm not sure how long the lunch break is going to be, but you're almost out of all of your time, if I include [Estes's] time and [the GAL's] time.

Capelety's attorney responded, "Thank you, Your Honor." After more of Capelety's direct testimony, the court stated, "We need to wrap this up. You have used all of your time." Capelety's attorney finished her remaining questions and made no objection.

[¶8] The court then explained that the proceeding would break for lunch and reiterated that Capelety had used all his time and would not have time for additional direct or cross-examination unless extra time remained after Estes and the GAL completed their presentations. Capelety's attorney asked, "to clarify, do you mean that there's no time for cross-examination?" The court explained,

That's correct. You've used all of your time. So your abilities to cross-examine Ms. Estes, call any additional witnesses, or cross-examine any of her witnesses is over. It's a ... one-day trial. And theoretically, both sides get approximately three hours by the time everything starts and finishes. We took time to have settlement discussions. And then you factor in the recess, you factor in the other cross-examination. Ms. Estes used six minutes. [The GAL] used four. You've had the bulk of the time here. And Ms. Estes has an opportunity to cross-examine your client, call her own witnesses to testify, and so does [the GAL]. So time is equally divided. So at this time, you have run out of time, depending on how the rest of the day goes.

Capelety's attorney thanked the court and made no objection. Following the noon time break, Capelety was cross-examined by Estes and the GAL.

[¶9] Next, Estes testified and was cross-examined by the GAL only. During her testimony, Estes testified, in part, that Capelety was "combative" and "aggressive" and that he had perpetrated "emotional, physical, financial, [and] sexual abuse" against her. After Estes finished testifying and made clear that she did not plan to present any witnesses other than herself, the court again addressed the timing of the proceedings. The court explained that Estes had thirty-nine minutes left and stated, "[T]hat also breaks into [the GAL's] time, so I'm going to give [the GAL] as much time as she needs, and then Ms. Estes, I will give you the opportunity to cross-examine [the GAL] if you want. Then I may have questions for [the GAL]. And after all that, [Capelety's attorney], if there is any time available before 4, I will give you an opportunity to cross-examine." Capelety did not object.

[¶10] At the beginning of the GAL's testimony, the GAL moved to admit her final report in evidence. Capelety objected "to the extent that some of the [GAL]’s recommendations" were based on the report or communications with Estes's proposed expert witness, whose testimony and report the court had excluded before trial. Capelety also objected to the admission of the report on the ground that he would not be able to cross-examine the GAL. The GAL explained that the proposed expert had been identified as someone Estes wanted the GAL to speak with as part of her investigation. The GAL noted that she had received and reviewed the proposed expert's report—an analysis of the parties’ text messages to one another—after completing her own report, and that it had not affected her recommendations. Over Capelety's objection, the trial court admitted in evidence the GAL's report, as well as several printouts of text messages between the parties.

[¶11] With the court's permission, the GAL initially testified in narrative fashion and thereafter responded to questions from the trial court. In total, the GAL testified for nearly forty minutes. She testified, in part, about her observations of an unhealthy dynamic of power and control between the parties. She stated that Estes had "gone into detail about ... the dynamics of physical, sexual, and emotional violence that was perpetrated on her during their relationship." The GAL also indicated that her investigation had not led her to believe that Capelety or the child were victims of domestic violence and that Capelety's testimony to that effect during the hearing was the first time she had heard that allegation. She explained that she believed that Capelety's testimony demonstrated that he had not "made much progress" despite his completion of a four-hour domestic violence course and that perpetrators of domestic violence "typically ... deflect onto their victims when they are at ... a very early stage in—in not addressing—or taking accountability for their actions." After Estes began cross-examining the GAL, Capelety raised an objection to the GAL's testimony about domestic violence on the ground that there was "nothing in ... evidence ... to support ... these broad-stroke allegations" and that Estes did not testify regarding any domestic violence. The court overruled the objection as untimely because Capelety did not object when the court asked the GAL questions about domestic violence between the parties.

[¶12] The court then indicated that it was concluding the hearing because it was 4:00 p.m. Capelety's attorney "put an objection on the record to not being able to cross-examine witnesses." His attorney also requested that the court "reschedule [the matter] for even just an hour to finalize" it, and she requested that the court permit the parties to submit written closing arguments. The court responded,

With respect to your request for rescheduling this case for an hour, that request is denied. The Court was clear at the beginning that the time would be equally divided between the parties. How the parties chose to use their time was up to them. The Court further cautioned you as well as Ms. Estes as to the remaining time and gave you a warning as to running out of time, so no. In terms of closing argument, the Court doesn't need that.... With respect to your objection about not having the ability to cross-examine witnesses, again, you put on your case ... and chose to present it in a manner that

...