Bobbie Jo (Al Jaber) Barrow v. Alaa M. Al Jaber

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2014 ME 152
Docket: Yor-14-27
Submitted
On Briefs: December 1, 2014
Decided: December 31, 2014
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.
BOBBIE JO (AL JABER) BARROW et al.
v.
ALAA M. AL JABER
HJELM, J.
[¶1] Alaa M. Al Jaber appeals from an order entered by the District Court
(Springvale, Darvin, J.), extending the duration of a previous order for protection
from abuse for the benefit of Bobbie Jo (Al Jaber) Barrow and the parties’ minor
children. Contrary to Al Jaber’s contentions, the record supports the court’s
finding that there was sufficient cause for the court to extend the duration of the
protection order. See 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(2) (2014). Further, neither the
proceedings nor the order violated Al Jaber’s rights to substantive and procedural
due process. See In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, ¶¶ 15-16, 55 A.3d 463;
19-A M.R.S. § 4006(6) (2014); 19-A M.R.S. § 4007(6) (2014); M.R. Civ. P. 55(a).
[¶2] Although we dispose of Al Jaber’s claims summarily, we write to
reiterate that it is the responsibility of incarcerated litigants, such as Al Jaber, to
2
initiate a request for arrangements to participate in court hearings. Here, Al Jaber
received notice of the hearing on Barrow’s motion to extend the duration of the
existing protection order. He did not, however, request any arrangements that
would have allowed him to participate at the hearing, although he filed written
submissions prior to the hearing. There exist avenues that allow a party to
participate meaningfully in a court hearing from remote locations, upon motion or
a showing of good cause, and when any proper safeguards, if needed, can be
imposed. See, e.g., M.R. Civ. P. 43(a); In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, ¶ 20, 55 A.3d
463 (“When a [party] is known to be incarcerated in advance of a hearing, the
court must, upon request by the [party], provide a meaningful opportunity for the
[party] to participate in the hearing whether in person, by telephone or video,
through deposition, or by other means that will reasonably ensure an opportunity
for the [party] to be meaningfully involved in the hearing.”). Although the court is
authorized to allow such participation on its own motion, the otherwise unavailable
party bears the responsibility to initiate contact with the court to make that interest
known. See M.R. Civ. P. 43(a); In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, ¶ 20, 55 A.3d 463.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
3
On the briefs:
Alaa M Al Jaber, pro se appellant
James M. Amendolara, Esq., Caring Unlimited, Inc., Saco, for
appellee Bobbie-Jo (Al Jaber) Barrow
Springvale District Court docket number PA-2011-403
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY