Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help
In re Shulikov

Back to Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT					Reporter of Decisions
Decision:	2000 ME 70
Docket:	Yor-99-566
on Briefs:	March 29, 2000
Decided:	April 20, 2000					




	[¶1] Nikolay Shulikov appeals the judgment of the York County
Probate Court (Nadeau, J.) that terminated his parental rights in his
youngest daughter.  Shulikov argues that the court erred by: (1) collaterally
estopping him from relitigating the question of his guilt with regard to
criminal convictions for gross sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, and
terrorizing involving a different daughter; (2) excluding evidence regarding
the parental fitness of the prospective adoptive father; and (3) finding
sufficient evidence to support the termination of his parental rights.
	[¶2]  In November 1995, the grand jury indicted Nikolay Shulikov on
10 counts of gross sexual assault (Class A), one count of gross sexual assault
(Class B), one count of sexual abuse of a minor (Class C), and two counts of
terrorizing (Class D), committed against his elder daughter.  Earlier in
1995, Shulikov's wife left him and then obtained a divorce.  
	[¶3]  The criminal charges were tried before a jury and Shulikov was
convicted on all counts.  The Superior Court (York County, Bradford, J.)
sentenced Shulikov to 26 years of imprisonment followed by 8 years of
probation with 5 years of imprisonment suspended.  
	[¶4]  Shulikov appealed the judgment of conviction and the
sentence.  See State v. Shulikov, 1998 ME 111, 712 A.2d 504.  We affirmed
the judgment of conviction, but vacated and remanded due to the improper
imposition of consecutive sentences on two counts arising out of a single
episode of sexual misconduct.  See id., 1998 ME 111, ¶ 31, 712 A.2d at 512
& n.8.  On remand, the court resentenced Shulikov by making concurrent
that part of the sentence related to the single episode.  On a subsequent
appeal, we affirmed.  State v. Shulikov, Mem-99-124 (Me. Oct. 25, 1999)
	[¶5]  On January 8, 1999, Shulikov's ex-wife and her present spouse
petitioned the Probate Court to terminate Shulikov's parental rights in his
younger daughter, pursuant to 18-A M.R.S.A. § 9-204 (1998 & Supp. 1999),{2}
so that the step-father could adopt her and the daughter could take his last
name.  A hearing on the termination petition was conducted in the York
County Probate Court.  The hearing was not recorded by either an official
court reporter or a court electronic recording process.  Because no official
transcript of the Probate Court hearing was available, the parties cooperated
to prepare an agreed statement of the evidence as authorized by M.R. Civ. P.
	[¶6]  The evidence at the hearing included the grand jury
indictment, the judgments and commitments for the crimes, and the
judgment of divorce.  The ex-wife also testified that during her 19-year
marriage to Shulikov he was "never a father and . . . was abusive," and that
her younger daughter would be hurt if the court did not terminate
Shulikov's parental rights just as the older sister had been hurt by Shulikov's
sexual abuse. 
	[¶7]  The court denied Shulikov the opportunity to "explore the
nature of the circumstances" that led to the convictions.   Because of the sex
crime convictions, the court at the close of the petitioners' case, found that
a rebuttable presumption existed as to parental unfitness and shifted the
burden of proof to Shulikov pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1-A) (Supp.
1999).{4}  Subsection 1-A speaks of "a" child.  Thus, misconduct indicated in
subsection 1-A, may raise the rebuttable presumption if it was directed
towards a different child than the child who is the subject of the
	[¶8]  Shulikov introduced an English translation of a written
statement in which he denied the criminal acts and blamed his problems on
his family turning on him because of his deteriorating health and approaches
to discipline.  Shulikov and others also testified at the hearings, presenting
differing views of Shulikov's parenting skills.
	[¶9]  At the close of the hearing, the court left the record open for a
written statement from Igor Kushnar, Shulikov's ex-wife's brother and
Shulikov's brother-in-law.  Kushnar submitted a statement saying that
Shulikov's parental rights should not be terminated because he was and is a
good father to his younger daughter and devoted a lot of care and attention
to her.
	[¶10]  On July 28, 1999, the Probate Court filed a judgment
terminating Shulikov's parental rights.  Shulikov filed a timely notice of
	[¶11]  Shulikov argues that the court erred in its application of the
doctrine of collateral estoppel to prevent him from questioning witnesses
about the circumstances underlying his convictions because his convictions
can still be attacked through a post-conviction review proceeding.{5}  Shulikov
also argues that he was denied a fair hearing because the court's application
of the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevented him from effectively cross­p;
examining witnesses.  Shulikov does not cite any authority for these
	[¶12]  The doctrine of collateral estoppel was appropriately applied
to bar relitigation of the facts resolved by the criminal convictions.  See
Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 634 A.2d 1312, 1315 (Me. 1993); M.R. Evid.
803(22). As we have noted, the governing statute in a termination action
authorizes a presumption of parental unfitness based on proof of a conviction
of certain crimes including gross sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor,
committed against any child in the parent's care.  See
22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1­p;A)(B)(7) & (8).
	[¶13]  Shulikov also asserts that the court erred when it prevented
him from attacking the parental fitness of the prospective adoptive father. 
When a petition for termination of parental rights is filed as a part of an
adoption petition, pursuant to 18-A M.R.S.A. § 9-204(a), such evidence could
be relevant in the termination proceeding in evaluating the long­p;term best
interest of the child-an essential issue in the termination decision. 
However, the record contains no offer of proof or other indication of what
evidence regarding the prospective adoptive father was sought to be offered. 
M.R. Evid. 103(a)(2).  Without such evidence indicated in the record,
Shulikov cannot demonstrate any prejudice from the court's ruling.  M.R.
Civ. P. 61; M.R. Evid. 103(a).
	[¶14]  Finally, Shulikov challenges the sufficiency of the evidence,
arguing that the court erroneously found, by clear and convincing evidence,
(1) that he is unable or unwilling to protect his younger daughter from
jeopardy within a time reasonably calculated to meet her needs; and (2) that
termination is in her best interest. 
	[¶15]  Pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055, an order terminating
Shulikov's parental rights may only be issued in a private termination case if:
(1) the termination petition is filed as part of an adoption proceeding; (2)
the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Shulikov is unwilling
or unable to protect his younger daughter from jeopardy within a time
reasonably calculated to meet her needs, or that Shulikov is unwilling or
unable to take responsibility for her within a time reasonably calculated to
meet her needs; and (3) termination of Shulikov's parental rights is in the
child's best interest.  See 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1)(A) & (B) (1998 & Supp.
1999).  Pursuant to Section 4055(1-A)(B)(7) & (8):
[T]he court may presume that the parent is unwilling or
unable to protect the child from jeopardy and these
circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is
reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs if . . . the
victim of . . . the following crime[] was a child for whom the
parent was responsible . . . and the parent has been convicted
of . . . gross sexual assault . . . sexual abuse of minors. . . .
22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1-A)(B)(7) & (8). 
	[¶16]  Application of the presumption of unfitness leaves Shulikov
with only one basis to challenge the court's findings:  whether termination is
in the younger daughter's best interest.  The evidence is clearly sufficient to
support this finding.
	The entry is:
			Judgment affirmed.
Attorney for appellant: Vicki M. Mathews, Esq. Stilphen & Matthews 64 Alfred Street Biddeford, ME 04005 Attorney for appellees: Herscel Lerman, Esq. P O Box T Biddeford, ME 04005
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} . The parties captioned this case using the child's first name. In the circumstances, use of the last name is more appropriate because of necessary citations to related cases. {2} . 18-A M.R.S.A. § 9-204(a) states, "(a) A petition for termination of parental rights may be brought in Probate Court in which an adoption petition is properly filed as part of that adoption petition except when a child protection proceeding is pending or is subject to review by the District Court." 18-A M.R.S.A. § 9-204(a) (1998). By operation of § 9-204(b), termination of parental rights issues in Probate Court are decided according to the same terms and conditions as 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 4051-4057 which governs State initiated termination of parental rights proceedings. See 18-A M.R.S.A. § 9­p;204(b) (Supp. 1999). {3} . M.R. Civ. P. 74(c) is incorporated into the Probate Court Rules by operation of M.R. Prob. P. 74(b). Rule 74(c) states as follows: (c) Statement of the Evidence or Proceedings When No Report Was Made or When the Transcript Is Unavailable. If no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was made, or if a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant's recollection. The statement shall be served on the appellee, who may serve objections or propose amendments thereto within 10 days after service. Thereupon the statement and any objections or proposed amendments shall be submitted to the Superior Court for settlement and approval and as settled and approved shall be included by the clerk of the Superior Court in the record on appeal. The parties are to be commended for agreeing on a statement of the evidence in what was certainly a difficult and emotional case. The statement included in the record on appeal is signed by counsel for both parties. However, the statement of the evidence does not appear to have been approved by the trial judge as required by Rule 74(c). Because no issue appears here, we will accept and consider the agreed but unapproved statement of the evidence in this case. However, we emphasize that because Rule 74(c) statements necessarily include representations as to statements or actions of the trial judge, the trial judge normally must review and approve or modify such statements before they are presented for appellate review. {4} . 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055(1-A) (Supp. 1999) states as follows: 1-A. Rebuttable presumption. The court may presume that the parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs if: A. The parent has acted toward a child in a manner that is heinous or abhorrent to society or has failed to protect a child in a manner that is heinous or abhorrent to society, without regard to the intent of the parent. B. The victim of any of the following crimes was a child for whom the parent was responsible or the victim was a child who was a member of a household lived in or frequented by the parent and the parent has been convicted of: (1) Murder; (2) Felony murder; (3) Manslaughter; (4) Aiding or soliciting suicide; (5) Aggravated assault; (6) Rape; (7) Gross sexual misconduct or gross sexual assault; (8) Sexual abuse of minors; (9) Incest; (10) Kidnapping; (11) Promotion of prostitution; or (12) A comparable crime in another jurisdiction; {5} . No pending post-conviction proceeding has been cited, and we are not independently aware of any such proceeding.