Doe v. Walsh
| Decision Date | 05 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | Docket: Wal-22-107 |
| Parties | Pat DOE v. James H. WALSH |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Michelle R. King, Esq., Irwin & Morris, Portland, for appellant James H. Walsh
Joseph W. Baiungo, Esq., Belfast, for appellee Pat Doe
Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ.
[¶1] James H. Walsh appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Belfast, Walker, J. ) ordering his divorce from Pat Doe1 and awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities of their two children to Doe. Walsh contends that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring that he disclose his counseling records to Doe in order to have contact with their children.2 Because the order broadly requires Walsh to produce all counseling records, but federal and state law circumscribe such production, we vacate that portion of the judgment.
[¶2] Walsh and Doe were married in 2009 and have two children together. In April 2021, Doe filed two complaints in the District Court—one seeking an order for protection from abuse, which was granted shortly thereafter, and one requesting a divorce from Walsh. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, pursuant to the order of protection, Doe was awarded temporary sole parental rights and responsibilities of the children, and Walsh was ordered to participate in therapy and was granted reasonable rights of contact with the children at Doe's discretion.
[¶3] Roughly six to seven years before Doe filed the complaint for divorce, Walsh's mental health began deteriorating. In 2018 to 2019, his mental health worsened, and Walsh experienced increasingly frequent episodes of paranoia and anger that caused arguments between him and Doe. There were instances when Walsh destroyed items of personal property, threatened violence against Doe, and physically restrained Doe. At times, these behaviors occurred in front of the children. Sometimes Walsh would come out of these episodes and realize that his behavior was inappropriate and would apologize. When Walsh is mentally well, he is a loving and devoted father to the children.
[¶4] Walsh testified that his mental health problems are due to untreated alcoholism, which Doe disputed and the trial court did not find credible. In November 2021, Walsh's contact with the children ended, partially out of Doe's concern that Walsh was not attending therapy as required by the order of protection. Doe requested "proof of counseling"3 to resume visits but did not receive a response until late December. After receiving a response, visits were arranged to resume in January 2022, but Walsh never appeared for the visits. Doe wants the children to be able to visit with Walsh and have a healthy relationship with him but is worried about his erratic and sometimes violent nature.
[¶5] The District Court held a two-day hearing on Doe's complaint for divorce on January 19 and February 9, 2022. Doe was represented by counsel and Walsh represented himself. On March 10, 2022, the court issued its judgment, which granted Doe a divorce due to irreconcilable differences. As to the children, the trial court ordered, inter alia, that Doe would have sole parental rights and responsibilities of the children and discretion as to when and how Walsh would have contact with the children. The court also ordered that Walsh "provide his counseling records to [Doe] through [a] supervised visitation agency to [help] convince [Doe] to allow visitation with the [children] and to help [Doe] know when and how this should occur." Walsh timely appealed.4 See 14 M.R.S. § 1901(1) (2022) ; M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(2)(B).
[¶6] In the context of parental rights and responsibilities, we review the trial court's factual findings for clear error and its ultimate conclusion of law for an abuse of discretion. Vibert v. Dimoulas , 2017 ME 62, ¶ 15, 159 A.3d 325.
[¶7] When a trial court determines parental rights and responsibilities, it must apply the best interest of the child standard as set forth in 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) (2022). " Section 1653(3) affords the trial court broad discretion in making its best interest determination, so long as children's safety and well-being are central to the court's decision." Vibert , 2017 ME 62, ¶ 19, 159 A.3d 325. This discretion, however, is not limitless. "The critical test in determining the propriety of the exercise of judicial discretion is whether, under the facts and circumstances of the particular case, it is in furtherance of justice." Guardianship of Stevens , 2014 ME 25, ¶ 16, 86 A.3d 1197 (quotation marks omitted).
[¶8] Under Maine law, an individual generally may access and obtain copies of their own medical records. See 22 M.R.S. §§ 1711, 1711-B (2022). Specifically, with certain exceptions, upon written authorization, "a health care practitioner shall release copies of all treatment records of a patient or a narrative containing all relevant information in the treatment records to the patient." 22 M.R.S. § 1711-B(2).
45 C.F.R. § 164.501 (2021) ; see also Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information , 65 Fed. Reg. 82462, 82733 (Dec. 28, 2000) () ( that psychotherapy notes are excluded from the general right of access because an individual's privacy interests in having access to the notes are outweighed by the potential harm caused by such access).
[¶10] Here, the trial court ordered that Walsh provide his "counseling records" to Doe through a supervised visitation agency to convince her to allow visitation with the children. The specific language used in the judgment is problematic because the term "counseling records" is overly broad. It could be interpreted to include information that meets the definition of psychotherapy notes, which, as discussed, Walsh does not have an absolute right to access under federal law. See State v. Olah , 2018 ME 56, ¶¶ 1, 6, 19-21, 184 A.3d 360 (). Thus, Walsh may not be able to comply with the court-ordered condition precedent to having contact with his children. See Aranovitch v. Versel , 2015 ME 146, ¶ 13, 127 A.3d 542 (); cf. Ames v. Ames , 2003 ME 60, ¶ 22, 822 A.2d 1201 ().
[¶11] Given the potential that the term "counseling records" could include information that Walsh may not have a right to access under federal and state law, the trial court abused its discretion in imposing this condition. As such, we vacate that portion of the judgment so that the trial court can narrow what is required of Walsh before he may have contact with his children. Any order entered should allow Doe to evaluate Walsh's pertinent mental health to determine when and how visitation should occur.6 The order must do so, however, without requiring Walsh to produce all his mental health records.
The entry is:
The provision of the divorce judgment requiring that Walsh provide Doe with copies of his counseling records is vacated. Remanded for issuance of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion.
1 Pursuant to federal law, we do not identify the plaintiff because of a protection from abuse order between the parties and limit our description of events and locations to avoid revealing "the identity or location of the party protected under [a protection] order" as required by 18 U.S.C.S. § 2265(d)(3) (LEXIS through Pub. L. No. 117-214 ). See Doe v. Hewson , 2022 ME 60, ¶ 1 n.1, 288 A.3d 382.
2 Walsh also asserts that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in (1) denying his motion to continue so that he could find counsel to represent him at the final hearing, (2) admitting and relying on testimony from Doe that contained inadmissible hearsay, and (3) dividing the marital portion of the parties’ home...
To continue reading
Request your trial