Brian Danielson v. Yi Peng

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2017 ME 80Docket: Pen-16-333
Submitted
On Briefs: April 27, 2017
Decided: May 4, 2017
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
BRIAN DANIELSON
v.
YI PENG
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Brian Danielson appeals from a judgment of the District Court
(Bangor, Jordan, J.) dismissing as moot Danielson’s March 2016 motion for
relief from a post-divorce contempt judgment that had been entered against
him in 2015. We affirm the court’s judgment.
[¶2] Danielson and Yi Peng were divorced through a judgment entered
in April 2013. The judgment established that the parties would share parental
rights and responsibilities of their then six-year-old daughter, and it set forth
a schedule of contact. The judgment required the parties to confer with each
other regarding medical decisions, with Danielson having final
decision-making authority regarding medical issues if the parties could not
agree.
2
[¶3] In February 2015, Peng moved for contempt on the ground that
Danielson was depriving her of contact with the child. The court (Dow, J.)
found Danielson in contempt in a judgment signed on March 20, 2015,
because Danielson had deprived Peng of contact and had attempted to have
the child take prescription medication without first consulting with Peng. The
court imposed a seven-day jail sentence on Danielson but stayed it in its
entirety. Danielson filed a motion for contempt against Peng a week later,
arguing that she had failed to administer the medication after Danielson had
first consulted with her and then decided it should be given. By order entered
on November 2, 2015, the court denied Danielson’s motion for contempt.
[¶4] Danielson appealed from both the judgment granting Peng’s
motion for contempt and the judgment denying his motion for contempt. We
affirmed the judgments. See Danielson v. Peng, Mem-16-111 (Oct. 11, 2016);
Danielson v. Peng, Mem-16-11 (Feb. 2, 2016).
[¶5] Now, for a second time, Danielson challenges the judgment finding
him in contempt, this time arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide
the contempt motion because it had granted a change of venue before holding
the contempt hearing. An argument that venue was improper does not
constitute a challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, however, and
3
therefore may not be raised at any time. See Powers v. Planned Parenthood of
N. New Eng., 677 A.2d 534, 538 (Me. 1996); see also Strout, Payson, Pellicani,
Hokkanen, Strong & Levine v. Barker, 2001 ME 28, ¶ 7, 765 A.2d 994; Biette v.
Scott Dugas Trucking & Excavating, Inc., 676 A.2d 490, 495 (Me. 1996); State v.
True, 330 A.2d 787, 789 (Me. 1975); State v. Baldwin, 305 A.2d 555, 558 (Me.
1973). A challenge to a trial court’s venue may be raised only in a timely
appeal. See 14 M.R.S. § 1901 (2016); 19-A M.R.S. § 104 (2016); M.R.
App. P. 2(a)(1), (b)(3). Accordingly, the court did not err in determining that
Danielson’s motion for relief—filed only after we had already affirmed the
contempt judgment on appeal, Danielson v. Peng, Mem-16-11 (Feb. 2, 2016)—
raised no “real and substantial controversy.” Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v.
Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 2016 ME 57, ¶ 5, 136 A.3d 714 (quotation
marks omitted).
[¶6] We note that Danielson, through this third appeal relating to the
court’s 2015 contempt judgments, seeks relief from a decision issued two
years ago regarding medical treatment of the parties’ daughter, who is now
ten years old. Because we have fully reviewed both of those 2015 judgments
on appeal, the District Court should carefully consider a summary dismissal of
4
any other motions filed by Danielson seeking to collaterally attack those
judgments.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Brian Danielson, appellant pro se
Yi Peng did not file a brief
Bangor District Court docket number FM-2015-157
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY