1. STATE OF MAINE
Cumberland, ss DISTRICf COURT
Location: Portland
Docket No. FM-08-51O
Igor Malenko.)
Plaintiff
v. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO MODIFY AND
Lori Handrahan, OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S
Defendant INTENDED RELOCATION
Mila Malenko is a little girl who just turned four years old. All the evidence presented to
the court during the various proceedings in this matter shows beyond a reasonable doubt that she
is a smart, cute, happy and delightful child. All of the evidence presented to the court also shows
that both of her parents are intelligent people who love her very much. Unfortunately, all of the
evidence presented to the court also shows that an effective co-parenting relationship between
the parties has never developed since the Divorce Judgment was issued. Mila needs both her
mother and"her father to be engaged with her individually as a parent. She has that. Mila also
needs both her mother and her father to be committed to work together to collaboratively and
cooperatively love her and guide her through her childhood. She clearly does not have that. The
fact that her parents are not able to co-parent her is harmful to Mila, and it will undoubtedly
become increasingly harmful to her as she gets older. In Mila's interests, the conflict between
her parents must stop, or at least it must be significantly abated.
The court's Divorce Judgment in this matter was an attempt to set the framework for the
parties to transition into a co-parenting relationship after a highly contentious trial. Since the
Divorce Judgment was issued, a Complaint for Protection From Abuse, a Complaint for
Protection From Harassment, complaints alleging attorney misconduct, and numerous post-
judgment motions have been filed, and the rancor between the parties has become steadily worse.
All the while, the well being of a wonderful four-year-old girl literally hangs in the balance.

2. This matter most recently came before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Modify and
Objection to Defendant's Intended Relocation. A hearing was held on January 14,2011.
Plaintiff and his attorney, Michael Waxman, Esq., were present. Defendant and her attorney,
Elizabeth Hoffman, Esq., were present. I The court heard testimony from both of the parties and
from three additional witnesses. Various exhibits were admitted into evidence.
On December 19,2010 via e-mail, the Defendant provided notice to Plaintiff that she would
be relocating to the Washington, DC area. Defendant accepted employment as a Senior Project
Director with AED in Washington. That employment officially began on November 29, 2010.
Her new job involves overseeing and facilitating a girls' scholarship program in Africa. The
work is humanitarian in nature, and is much like being in the Foreign Service, except her new
employer, AED, is a non-governmental organization. In accepting this job, Defendant more than
doubled her yearly income from 2010? Pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1657(2), Defendant's
relocation constitutes a substantial change in circumstances requiring a review of any previous
arrangement of parental rights and responsibilities. Currently, the parties share parental rights
and responsibilities, and Mila's primary residence is with the Defendant.
The evidence indicates that both of the parties are very attentive to Mila's basic needs, and
both of the parties wish for Mila to be happy and healthy. The evidence also indicates that Mila
is quite comfortable with both of the parties individually as her mother and as her father.
Unfortunately, the evidence demonstrates that, at least presently, a co-parenting relationship
between the parties is not possible. It is not possible because the Defendant either refuses or is
unable to let it happen. Whether the Defendant "refuses" to co-parent with the Plaintiff, or
whether she is "unable" to co-parent with the Plaintiff is unclear. The answer to this question
may lie at least in part, to the Defendant's narcissistic personality diagnosis. The distinction is
immaterial to the present determination to be made by the court, but it might well be important at
some time in the future regarding the Defendant's capacity to co-parent with the Plaintiff.
The testimony from the parties at the most recent hearing was very similar in tenor to their
testimony at trial in December of 2008. The court finds the testimony of the Plaintiff to be
credible. He was forthright, his testimony made sense, and his testimony was corroborated by
I Attorney Hoffman filed a Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant on
December 21, 2010. The court granted this motion after the conclusion of the hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion to Modify and Objection to Defendant's Intended Relocation.
2 Information presented in the form of a Child Support Affidavit established that Defendant
earned $45,000.00 in 2010.
2

3. other evidence. The court does not find the testimony of the Defendant to be credible. The
Defendant was very evasive in her answers to questions, and she made a strange and
unsubstantiated claim. She testified that, "pedophiles use decongestants to sedate children.,,3 No
credible evidence was presented at all to indicate that Mila was provided any drugs or was
influenced by drugs. Nevertheless, the Defendant suspected that the Plaintiff had drugged Mila.
Consequently, the Defendant had a test done on Mila's urine in February of 2010. She claimed
that there "was "meth" in Mila's urine that was documented at a national lab." She offered no
credible evidence to corroborate this claim. The Defendant indicated that the Department of
Health and Human Services refused to intervene regarding her claim, so she contacted the Drug
Enforcement Agency (it was unclear whether the Defendant contacted the Maine Drug
Enforcement Agency, or the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency). Apparently, the DEA refused
to intervene as well. Based upon the evidence presented, the court does not find the Defendant's
claim to be at all credible.
When the court issued its Divorce Judgment, it was hopeful that the Defendant would be
able to co-parent Mila with the Plaintiff, but there were clear signs, based on the Defendant's
pre-divorce conduct, that this hope might be ill founded. Specifically, the court was concerned
about the Defendant's ability to co-parent Mila with the Plaintiff in light of the fact that the
Defendant had continually insisted that the Plaintiff was mentally ill and that he required
treatment (when he was not mentally ill at all). Moreover, the Defendant insisted that the
Plaintiff take certain medications for "his mental illness" (that Plaintiff did not need, but which
he nevertheless took to avoid difficulty with the Defendant). Additionally, the Defendant tried
unsuccessfully in two instances to have the Plaintiff involuntarily committed for mental health
treatment.
Since the Divorce Judgment was issued, the Defendant has continued to demonstrate that
she will not cooperate with the Plaintiff in the parenting of their daughter. She has unilaterally
removed Mila from her day care arrangements. She has refused to inform the Plaintiff of where
Mila attended day care, or who Mila's medical care providers are. In August of 2009, the
Defendant simply relocated to Sorrento, Maine, a town four hours away from South Portland,
where the parties had been residing. She did this without any notice to the Plaintiff. All of these
actions were in direct violation of the Divorce Judgment.
3 In August 2009, the Defendant filed a Complaint for Protection From Abuse alleging that the
Plaintiff had sexually abused Mila. This claim was unsupported by the evidence presented at
hearing, and judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff. See Handrahan v. Malenko, No. 2011
ME 15, decided 1/25/1 1.
3

4. The court finds that the Defendant lacks the capacity to allow and encourage continuing and
frequent contact between Mila and the Plaintiff, and that she lacks the capacity to cooperate or to
learn to cooperate with the Plaintiff in caring for Mila. The Defendant has shown no interest in
seeking out methods for her use in cooperating with the Plaintiff or for her use in resolving
disputes with the Plaintiff relating to the parenting of MIla: the Defendant has simply resisted the
Plaintiff's efforts to be Mila's father at nearly every turn.
Conversely, the court is more optimistic that the Plaintiff has the capacity and the
willingness to co-parent with the Defendant. He understands that Mila needs both of her parents,
and he has expressed a willingness to cooperate with the Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff has
not disobeyed the court's orders, as the Defendant has, and the Plaintiff has been very patient and
appropriate in his response to the Defendant's recalcitrance. The court finds that Mila has spent
enough time with the Plaintiff to be very comfortable with him as her dad. The living
arrangements that the Plaintiff provides for Mila are quite stable and adequate, and Mila is
comfortable with her life with the Plaintiff in South Portland.
Considering the Defendant's actions to block the Plaintiff's efforts and his rights to be
Mila's father, the court believes that it is not in Mila's best interests for her primary residence to
remain with the Defendant at this time. Based on the evidence presented and on the very
difficult history of this case, the court believes that the Defendant will continue to resist the
Plaintiff's efforts in parenting Mila. This resistance can (as it has in the past) involve making
unilateral decisions in important matters, deliberately withholding important information and
commencing legal proceedings that hinder Mila's contact with the Plaintiff. The Defendant will
now be residing in Washington. In this new arrangement, there will be long distance between
the parties and the Defendant will have access to courts in an entirely different jurisdiction.
There has been a finding made in another proceeding tangential to this family matter that the
Defendant previously filed her Complaint for Protection From Abuse in the Ellsworth District
Court in an effort to avoid dealing with the Portland District Court.4 If the Defendant were the
primary residential parent in Washington, she could seriously disrupt Mila's access to her father.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify and Objection to Defendant's Intended Relocation
is granted in part, and denied in part.
4See Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Michael 1. Waxman, Esq., Supreme Judicial Court,
Docket No. Bar-l 0-5, at IV, paragraph 92.
4

5. The court finds at this time that it is in Mila's best interests for her primary residence to be
with the Plaintiff, and the court so orders. The court also finds that it is in Mila's best interests
for the parties to share parental rights and responsibilities. The court expects the Plaintiff to do
what the Defendant has not done since the Divorce Judgment was issued: the court expects that
the Plaintiff will inform the Defendant of all important events and circumstances in Mila's life.
Toward that end, the Plaintiff shall be required to provide at least weekly e-mails to the
Defendant about the events and activities of each week. The court also expects that, with the
exception of any emergency, the Plaintiff will involve the Defendant in all important decisions
that are made regarding Mila. The Plaintiff shall have discussions with the Defendant by way of
e-mail well prior to any important decision being made concerning Mila, so that the Defendant's
viewpoint can be timely and fairly expressed. The Plaintiff shall carefully, conscientiously and
fairly consider the Defendant's views regarding any important decision concerning Mila.
Likewise, the Defendant shall carefully, conscientiously and fairly consider the Plaintiff's views
regarding any important decision concerning Mila. Ideally, these important decisions should be
arrived at by agreement, whenever possible. In the event that the parties cannot come to an
agreement on any important decision regarding Mila, the Plaintiff shall make the final decision.
The Plaintiff shall hold Mila's passport.
Mila's visits with the Defendant ought to be frequent and plentiful. Those visits shall take
place in Maine on the first, third and fourth weekends of each month, from Friday through
Sunday. The exact timing of pick-up and drop-off shall be determined by the parties, and will
depend entirely on the parties'schedules, particularly that of the Defendant, since she will be
travelling from Washington, DC. These visits are extremely important, and the parties are
reminded that they ought to be extremely respectful of, and accommodating with each other
regarding pick-up and drop-off times. On one of these weekends during each two-month period,
Mila shall visit the Defendant in Washington, DC, provided at least one of the parties
accompanies her during her round-trip. The Defendant shall cover all of the costs of the travel
necessary to accomplish these visits.
Mila shall spend Christmas vacation in even years with the Plaintiff and she shall spend
Christmas vacation in odd years with the Defendant.
Mila shall spend Thanksgiving vacation in odd years with the Plaintiff and she shall spend
Thanksgiving vacation in even years with the Defendant.
5

6. When Mila enters school, she shall spend February vacation in odd years with the Plaintiff
and she shall spend February vacation in even years with the Defendant.
When Mila enters school. she shall spend April vacation in even years with the Plaintiff and
she shall spend April vacation in odd years with the Defendant.
Mila shall spend Easter weekend in odd years with the Plaintiff and she shall spend Easter
weekend in even years with the Defendant. This Easter weekend schedule shall supersede the
previously mentioned regular weekend schedule in the event of a conflict.
Each summer, Mila shall spend two separate periods of a consecuti ve two weeks with the
Defendant. Prior arrangements for these visits shall be made by the parties at least one month in
advance of each two week visit.
CHILD SUPPORT
The court has made certain findings regarding the parties' incomes and Parental Support
Obligations set forth in the Child Support Worksheet which is attached and incorporated by
reference. The attached Child Support Order and Immediate Income Withholding Order are also
incorporated by reference.
Plaintiff shall claim Mila as a dependent for Federal and State Income Tax purposes until
she no longer meets the eligibility requirements for Plaintiff to receive any associated tax credits.
The Defendant shall maintain a term life insurance policy in the face amount of $50,000
for the duration of any child support obligation under this Order. The Defendant shall pay for
the cost of the annual premium. The Defendant shall name the Plaintiff as sole beneficiary of the
policy with Mila as beneficiary should the Plaintiff not survive the Defendant. This policy shall
become effecti ve no later than thirty days after the date of this Order and the Defendant shall
provide to the Plaintiff an annual Certificate of Insurance on or before the 30th day and thereafter
on or before each annual renewal date the obligation is in place.
6

7. All of the provisions of the court's previous Judgement and Orders that are n01
inconsistent with the terms of this Order shall remain in full force and effect. All other pending
Motions are denied.
The Clerk is requested to incorporate this order by reference on the docket at the direction
of the Court pursuant to M.R.Civ. P. 79(a).
Judge, District Court

8. STATE OF MAINE
SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT COURT
, ss Location Portland
Docket No. Docket No. PM-08-S10
Igor Malenko Plaintiff
v. CHILD SUPPORT ORDER
Lori Handrahan Defendant
This Child Support Order is made a part of the D Divorce Judgment D Protection from Abuse Order D Parental Rights and
Responsibilities Judgment D Paternity Judgment D Case Management Order ~ Other Order on Motion to Modi~
~ of this date 0 dated ---------.------
Pursuant to 19-A M.R.S.A. §2006, the court has made certain findings of fact concerning the current parental support
obligation as computed under the presumptive application of the guidelines. Those findings are contained within the child support
worksheet which is attached and incorporated.
_______ LO~~ Handrah~ -- is ordered to pay to Ig._o_r_M_a_l_.e_n_k_o -----
Name of obligor Name of obligee
the sum of $ 368. 80 per week toward the support of:
Child's Name Date of Birth Child's Name Date of Birth
Mila Malenko 11/29/2006
The child support payments are to start 02/04/2011 . If a child receives public
assistance, the child support payments for that child shall be made to the State of Maine Department of Health & Human Services.
D The Court finds that the child(ren) currently receive(s) dependent benefits as a result of the obligor's disability. In any
month that the benefits received by the child(ren) meet or exceed the total monthly support obligation, the obligor shall receive a credit
for the total amount of support due. To the extent that the monthly benefits received by the child(ren) do not satisfy the obligor's
monthly support obligation, the obligor shall pay the monthly support obligation minus the credits received by the child(ren). The
obligor shall not be given credit toward past or future obligations for benefits which exceed the current monthly support obligation.
D The child support obligation shall remain in effect until (further order or until
expiration of any underlying Protection from Abuse Order, whichever occurs first).
QI The child support obligation shall continue for each child until that child reaches the age of 18; provided, however, that if
the child has not graduated, withdrawn, or been expelled from secondary school as defined in Title 20-A, the child support shall
continue until the child graduates or reaches the age of 19, whichever occurs first.
flI Igor Malenko shall maintain health insurance for the benefit of the minor
child(ren) ifit is available at a reasonable cost, which means health insurance that is employment-related or other group health
insurance. Proof of such insurance must be furnished to the other party within 15 days. If the child(ren) is (are) recipients of public
assistance, proof of such insurance shall be provided to the Department of Health & Human Services within 15 days.
o Any uninsured medical and dental expenses of the child(ren), in excess of$250 per calendar year, shall be paid in the
following manner: 80% % by the obligor and 20% % by the obligee. The first $250 of annual uninsured medical
expenses shall be paid by the obligee.
D The child support obligation is based on the fact the parents are providing substantially equal care for their child(ren).
Day care costs, health insurance premiums, and uninsured medical expenses shall be shared as follows: % to be paid by the
higher income parent and % to be paid by the lower income parent. D The child support amount set forth above has been
adjusted to reflect each party's proportionate share of these costs. D Each party's proportionate share will be paid as follows:
FM -132, Rev. 09/05

9. If the Maine Department of Health & Human Services provides support enforcement services and/or if the obligor is required
to pay child support to the Maine Department of Health & Human Services, the obligor shall notify the Department within 15 days of
the date of this Order of the following: 1. The obligor's current address; 2. The name and address of the obligor's current employer,
and 3. Whether the obligor has access to health insurance at a reasonable cost, and, if so, the health insurance policy information.
Within 15 days of any change in the obligor's current address, any change in the name or address of the obligor's current
employer, or any change in the health insurance policy information, the obligor shall notify the Department of the change. Failure to
report a change of address or employer to the Department within 15 days of such change is a civil violation for which a forfeiture not
to exceed $200 may be adjudged for each violation.
Any party to this action may ask the court to review the amount of child support and if appropriate, to modify it in accordance
with the state's child support guidelines. To start this process, a party must file with the court a Motion to Modify. If it has been less
than 3 years since the child support order was issued or modified, the party must prove a substantial change in circumstances.
o There is (are) child(ren) who is (are) 10 or II years of age. Beginning . _
when ~ reaches the age of 12 years, the child support will be $ _
per week. Beginning when reaches the age of 12 years,
the child support will bc $ per week.
o All of the minor children are age 12 or older. As long as there are children entitled to parental support,
that sum is $ per week. As long as there are children entitled to parental support, that sum is
$ per week. When only one child is entitled to parental support, the s urn is $ per week.
D The amount(s) set forth above for child support constitute(s) a deviation from the presumptive amount required by the
child support guidelines. In this case the court finds that a child support ordcr based on the guidelines would be inequitable or unjust
for the following reasons: (Setforth the reasonsfor the deviation.) _
o The Immediate Income Withholding Order of this date attached hereto is incorporated by reference.
D No Immediate Income Withholding Order shall issue because:
D The court finds there is good causc not to issue such an order for the following reasons: _
o The parties have submitted and the court has approved a written agreement providing for an alternative arrangement.
The clerk is directed to make the following entry in the civil docket pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a). "Child Support Order
filed. Lori Handrahan ordered to pay child support of $ 368.80 per week. This
::::'" '"'Or"]:'otL:' by"r,,,",, " ,", 'p,,'fi, "'''"0" O"h~ Judge
If'Jf?L- s::.__
/ Justlco+Ma-glstTate' --
A True Copy. Attest _
Clerk
Important Notice to the Parties
Any party who wishes to appeal a Magistrate's final order shall file an objection to the final order in the District Court within 21 days
of the entry of that order. The court clerk's office has a form available for this purpose. If no objection is filed, the parties are
deemed to have waived their right to object and to appeal, and the Magistrate's final order shall become the judgment of the court and
have the same effect as any final judgment signed by a District Court judge. No appeal may be taken from a judgment entered without
objection to the final order of a Magistrate. An appeal from a judgment entered after objection shall be taken in accordance with the
Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Anv Dartv who wishes to a eal within 21 davs.
DFVI
FM -132, Rev. 09/05, pg. 2

10. STATE OF MAINE
SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT COURT
, ss Location Portland
Docket No. Docket No. PM-OS-SID
Igor Malenko Plaintiff IMMEDIATE INCOME
v. WITHHOLDING ORDER
Lori Handrahan Defendant
Name of Obligor: Lori Handrahan
Obligor's Support Enforcement Member Number (ifknown):, _
Name of Obligee: Igor Malenko
Weekly Withholding Amount to Satisfy Current Support Obligation:,--"-3-:..6-:..S-:...-:..S-:..0 _
This Immediate Income Withholding Order, issued pursuant to 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2651 et seq, is incorporated in the Divorce
Judgment or Order of this court of this date. This Order may be used to collect current support and past-due support.
To the payor of income to the obligor from any source:
It is ORDERED that:
I. Beginning on the next date the obligor is usually paid after you receive a copy of this Order, you shall withhold each
week from any amounts due the obligor:
A. The above stated weekly withholding amount to satisfy the current support obligation;
B. An additional amount to be applied toward any past-due support owed by the obligor, if a notice of such an
additional amount is served on you with a copy of this withholding order; and
C. A fee of $2.00 per week in addition to the amount withheld for child support. The fee shall be sent to the
Department of Health & Human Services.
2. Within 7 days after the next usual date the obligor receives payment and each payment date thereafter, you shall send the
amount of any withholding, along with the $2.00 fee and the obligor's support enforcement member number, if known, to:
Department of Health & Human Services, IV-D Cashier, Box 1098, Augusta, ME 04332. Notice is hereby given that the amount of
the withholding shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the United States Code, Title IS, § I 673(b ).
3. Within 15 days after such time as you are no longer paying income from any source to the obligor, you shall notify the
Department of Health & Human Services in writing of such termination, giving the obligor's name, the obligor's last known address,
the obligor's Social Security number, the obligor's support enforcement member number, the date of termination, and, if known, the
identity of any new payor of income to the obligor.
This Order shall remain in effect until (I) terminated by order of the court; (2) you are released in writing from its terms by
the Department of Health & Human Services; or (3) if this order was implemented by the obligee as a private withholding action, you
are released in writing from its terms by the obligee.
Knowing failure of a payor to withhold or send support payments required by this Order or to notify in the event of
termination of the relationship is a civil violation and may subject the payor to civil liability, iJiciuding costs, attorney's fees,
and a $100 civil penalty for each such knowing failure. A payor who discharges an obligor from employment or refuses to
employ an obligor or who takes disciplinary action against an obligor employed by the payor or who otherwise discriminates
against the obligor because of the existence of an income withholding order or the obligations imposed upon the payor by this
Order is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 and is also subject to a civil action by the obligor for compensatory and
punitive damages, together with attorney's fees and cOllrt costs.

11. SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT
,ss. Location Portland
Docket No. _ Docket No. FM-08-510
Igor Malenko Plaintiff
vs. CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET
Lori Handrahan Defendant
I. a. Primary care provider (parent children live with most of the time): Gl
Plaintiff 0
Defendant Both 0
If parents provide substantially equal care, higher income parent should be shown as the non-primary care provider.
b. Parent providing health insurance for the children: !;iJ Plaintiff 0
Defendant Neither 0
2. Child's Name Date of Birth Child's Name Date of Birth
Mila Malenko 11/29/2006
Yearly Amounts Primary Care Provider Non-Primary Care Provider Combined Income
o Self-support reserve
o Below poverty level
3. Gross income $ 27,000.00 $ 105,000.00
4. Minus other obligations
a. Support paid to former spouse a. a.
b. Support paid for other children b. b.
c. Other children living with non-primary care c.
provider (See instructions on reverse side.
S. Total of 4a, b, & cO. 00 0.00
6. Adjusted Yearly Gross Income a. b.
Subtract line S from line 3) 27,000.00 105,000.00 132,000.OC
i 7. Share of Gross Income a. b. (Add 6a & 6b)
I (Divide each parent's income by combined income) 20% % 80% %
8. Basic weekly support for all children up to 18 years (or up to 19 years if still in high school) (See instructions on reverse,)
a. Total number of children _1 _
b. Number of children ages 0-11 _1 __ multiplied by amount from table 238 = $ 238
c. Number of children ages 12-] 7 _0 __ multiplied by amount from table o = $_0 _
Total (add8band8c): 8.238.00
9. Weekly health insurance cost for children
Name & amount per child per week Mila Malenko $ 23.00
$------- Total: 9.23•00
10. Weekly child care expenses
Name & amount per child per week Mila Malenko $200.00
$--------
Total: 10. 200.00
I I. Extraordinary medical expenses
Name & amount per child per week _ $--------
$--------
Total: II. _0_._0_0 _
*If parents provide substantially equal care, continue calculations on supplemental worksheet.
12.TOTAL WEEKLY SUPPORT OBLIGATION (Add lines 8, 9,10 and II.) 12. 461.00
13.WEEKL Y PARENTAL SUPPORT OBLIGATION:
a. Primary Care b. Non-Primary Care
Provider spends directly $_9_2_._2_0 _ Provider's support obligation $~3~6~8~.
8~0~ _
(Multiply line 7a by line 12) (Multiply line 7b by line 12)
Health insurance adjustment - _0_._0_0 _
(See instructions on reverse side)
avS .i!11ua6ort.3-6'S":8 0
Date: LL--'i/
FM-040, Rev. 09105 Iift)-fQefe~dant) (Judge) (Magtst-r.ffi~or)