## Facts

- Kathleen L. Dyer and Bruce S. Dyer were formerly married and share one child.
- In December 2005, Bruce assaulted Kathleen in the garage of their home, striking her from behind with a lacrosse stick, striking her in the face, and covering her mouth and nose until she was nearly unconscious; the assault ended when their child entered and Kathleen told her to call 9-1-1.
- Bruce was arrested, convicted of aggravated assault, and served about six months in jail.
- The parties agreed to a protection-from-abuse order entered without a finding of abuse; it barred Bruce from direct or indirect contact with Kathleen (and initially also their child) for two years.
- Bruce violated the original order twice by sending a Christmas card and by entering Kathleen’s home.
- In 2007, the parties agreed to extend the order for two additional years without a finding of abuse (and the extension did not apply to the child).
- In 2009, Kathleen sought another extension; after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found abuse and extended the order for four additional years, later finding the assault “extraordinarily brutal and unprovoked” and that Kathleen continued to live in fear.

## Issues

1. Whether 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(2) authorizes more than one extension of a protection-from-abuse order.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Kathleen had an objectively reasonable fear of future abuse warranting extension.
3. Whether extending the order for four years was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the extension order.
- The court held that § 4007(2) permits multiple extensions when the statutory criteria are met.
- The court held the trial court’s finding of objectively reasonable fear was supported by the record, including the severity of the assault and subsequent order violations.
- The court held the four-year extension was within the trial court’s discretion given the seriousness of the conduct and ongoing fear.

## Legal Principles

- A protection-from-abuse order may be extended more than once under 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(2) if the movant continues to satisfy the statutory standard, including an objectively reasonable fear of further abuse.
- Objective reasonableness of fear may be supported by the severity and nature of prior abuse and by later conduct such as violations of an existing protection order.
- Appellate review defers to trial-court fact-finding unless clearly erroneous and reviews the duration of an extension for abuse of discretion, allowing tailored terms consistent with the statute’s protective purpose.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a second extension of a protection-from-abuse order, concluding the statute allows successive extensions, the evidence supported an objectively reasonable fear of future abuse, and a four-year term was not an abuse of discretion.


Dyer v. Dyer, 5 A.3d 1049 (Me. 2010)