Amanda Morse Order-Issue and Timestamp Ledger
=============================================

Issues: 12
Exact clock-time anchors: 22
Reported hearing duration: 326 minutes
Wrong-surname references in searchable order transcription: 19

EVIDENTIARY BOUNDARY
Official orders, native emails, provider/school records, transcript/audio, and docket records control. Rule 52 motions and other filings preserve challenges; they are not themselves judicial findings.

ORDER-ISSUE LEDGER

1. The order says a Thanksgiving Day transition occurred. The correction motion says the testimony showed that it did not.
Category/status: Factual finding / Rule 52(b) challenge preserved
Order or official record: Page 6 of the February 11 order states that the child transitioned to the father’s home on Thanksgiving Day.
Challenge or later record: The Rule 52(b) motion states that the testimony—including Ms. Morse’s—established that the child had been with the father until approximately noon on Thanksgiving Eve, did not transition on Thanksgiving Day as scheduled, remained with Ms. Morse until Monday, and was at the father’s residence only about two to three hours on Monday.
Time anchor: Underlying event lane: Nov. 27–Dec. 2, 2024 · correction motion served Feb. 14, 2026
Source: February 11, 2026 Findings and Order, p. 6; Rule 52(b) Motion to Amend Findings.
Limitation: The correction motion is a party filing describing the hearing testimony. Unless a later signed order corrected the finding, this is a preserved challenge—not a judicially adjudicated correction.

2. The Monday-retrieval narrative was challenged as implying a communication attempt the motion says the testimony never established.
Category/status: Factual finding / Clarification requested
Order or official record: The order describes the Monday retrieval as part of its late-November and early-December narrative.
Challenge or later record: The Rule 52(b) motion states that Ms. Morse testified that she retrieved the child, but that the record did not establish that she first attempted to communicate with the father before doing so.
Time anchor: Event date: Dec. 2, 2024 · clarification requested Feb. 14, 2026
Source: February 11, 2026 Findings and Order, p. 6; Rule 52(b) Motion to Amend Findings.
Limitation: This card identifies the requested correction. It does not decide credibility or reconstruct testimony beyond the filed motion.

3. The correction motion says the therapist’s testimony was narrower than the written order can be read to suggest.
Category/status: Testimony scope / Rule 52(b) challenge preserved
Order or official record: The order references reunification counseling progress and incorporates broader findings about fear, intimidation, treatment, and future contact.
Challenge or later record: The Rule 52(b) motion states that Daniel Pierce, LCSW testified only that the father appeared nervous initially; it states that he did not testify to threatening, violent, or intimidating conduct in session, or to broader concerns about tone or manner beyond that initial nervousness.
Time anchor: Hearing: Jan. 16, 2026 · 8:30 a.m. calendar start · 326 reported minutes
Source: February 11, 2026 Findings and Order; Rule 52(b) Motion to Amend Findings; transcript-order timeline.
Limitation: The native audio or transcript controls the exact testimony and any segment timestamp. The current public-safe source set does not provide the precise audio time for this exchange.

4. The caption identifies Amanda Morse. The searchable order transcription calls her “Ms. Moore” 19 times.
Category/status: Document integrity / Visible text inconsistency
Order or official record: The official caption names Amanda Morse. The findings repeatedly switch to “Ms. Moore” in the substantive narrative, contempt discussion, and child-support findings.
Challenge or later record: A direct count of the public searchable transcription returns 19 instances of “Ms. Moore.” The mismatch is document-quality evidence; it does not by itself prove a different substantive outcome.
Time anchor: Order dated Feb. 11, 2026 · 19-page findings/order
Source: February 11, 2026 Findings and Order; searchable transcription of the image-only order.
Limitation: The original signed scan controls. The count is based on the searchable transcription and should be checked against the source scan when quoted in formal proceedings.

5. The order denied contempt globally; the supplemental motion says specific amended compliance allegations were never separately addressed.
Category/status: Missing findings / Supplemental Rule 52 request
Order or official record: The February 11 order concludes that contempt was not proven and denies the motion, including pre-hearing amendments.
Challenge or later record: The supplemental Rule 52 motion states that the amended motion raised financial-disclosure and child-support-affidavit compliance issues, and asks whether those allegations were considered and, if rejected, for findings adequate for meaningful appellate review.
Time anchor: Supplemental motion served Feb. 14, 2026
Source: Supplemental Motion to Amend Findings under M.R. Civ. P. 52(b).
Limitation: This is a preserved omission argument. It does not establish that a required finding was legally omitted or that contempt was proven.

6. The order never says “sole gatekeeper.” The direct email record does.
Category/status: Order implementation / Direct written contradiction
Order or official record: The order provides reasonable daily electronic contact and in-person contact starting no later than thirty days, subject to stated conditions, while requiring respect for the child’s schedule and desires.
Challenge or later record: At 12:03 a.m. on April 24, Ms. Morse wrote that the order plainly made the child the “sole gatekeeper” of contact; at 12:11 a.m. she said that position was “verbatim.” The phrase does not appear in the order.
Time anchor: Apr. 24, 2026 · 12:03 a.m. and 12:11 a.m.
Source: February 11, 2026 order; April 24 direct email thread; v21/v22 master timeline.
Limitation: The emails prove the statements were sent. The legal effect of the order remains for the court to interpret.

7. The order authorized a parenting application but never established the actual access protocol needed to use one.
Category/status: Parenting application / Operational gap
Order or official record: The order says communications shall be by email, text message, or a parenting application such as AppClose or Our Family Wizard, absent agreement or emergency.
Challenge or later record: Within days, the implementation requests asked for the current number, designated platform, daily contact window, and fallback logistics. The later motion sought a court-defined platform and window because the written order did not supply them.
Time anchor: First precise request: Feb. 14, 2026 · 4:20 p.m.
Source: February 11 order; February 16 compliance email summarizing Feb. 14 timestamps; interim-logistics motion.
Limitation: The absence of a named mandatory app is an implementation problem, not proof that either party alone caused every later communication failure.

8. Shared parental rights existed on paper while direct school-portal, Annual Update, and records access still required intervention.
Category/status: School parent portal / Access issue documented
Order or official record: The order preserves shared parental rights except as specifically allocated and states that each parent shall have access to medical, dental, and school records and information.
Challenge or later record: During May 5–8, the record preserves requests for confirmation of direct school communications, portal access, records, and Annual Update access. The school forwarded the request internally for assistance while attendance concerns continued.
Time anchor: May 5–8, 2026 · school-access and portal lane
Source: v11/v22 master timeline; MSAD communications and portal screenshots.
Limitation: The preserved records establish the access request and school routing. They do not alone establish who configured every school-account field or why.

9. At 11:03 a.m. on July 27, the York Hospital portal displayed verification numbers that were not the father’s longstanding number.
Category/status: Medical proxy portal / Time-stamped access condition
Order or official record: The order preserves access to medical records and shared responsibility for major child-welfare information unless specifically modified.
Challenge or later record: After the Healow application no longer allowed prior access, the desktop portal displayed verification options ending in a number the father states was not his. At 11:16 a.m. he sent a preservation and audit request for demographic, proxy, appointment-notice, and access-history records.
Time anchor: Jul. 27, 2026 · 9:33 a.m. notice · 10:44 a.m. request · 11:03 a.m. screenshot · 11:16 a.m. audit request
Source: v21 master timeline; time-stamped portal screenshot; provider-preservation email.
Limitation: The screenshot proves the access condition visible at that moment. It does not identify who changed any data, when a change occurred, or whether an adolescent-portal policy contributed.

10. On August 3, the child—not the adults—became the messenger about whether the father was permitted at the medical appointment.
Category/status: Child as intermediary / Contemporaneous sequence preserved
Order or official record: The order assigns adult communication duties, shared records access, and prompt child-welfare communication; it does not appoint the child as legal interpreter or enforcement officer.
Challenge or later record: At approximately 10:24 a.m. the child called and conveyed a belief that the father was not permitted to be there. At 10:30:20 a.m. the father notified Ms. Morse and counsel; at 10:52:34 a.m. he notified the provider and records channels and requested direct access and preservation.
Time anchor: Aug. 3, 2026 · 10:24 a.m. · 10:30:20 a.m. · 10:52:34 a.m.
Source: August 3 contemporaneous emails and consolidated exhibits; v22 master timeline.
Limitation: The sequence proves timing and transmitted statements. It does not establish who created the child’s belief or any person’s motive.

11. Professional seniority is not evidence, and professional courtesy is not a substitute for testing the record.
Category/status: Professional deference / Party criticism; timestamp open
Order or official record: The January 16 hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. and later identified as 326 minutes long. The order says the court weighed credibility and demeanor.
Challenge or later record: A later filing criticizes institutional deference to bar seniority, familiarity, title, or the economic convenience of continued conflict. This page records that criticism as a party position and does not convert it into a finding of judicial bias.
Time anchor: Jan. 16, 2026 · 8:30 a.m. start · 326 minutes · specific disputed exchange timestamp not verified
Source: Registry/hearing record; transcript-order timeline; Motion to Enforce Implementation, professional-courtesy paragraph.
Limitation: The currently available public-safe sources do not contain a verified audio timestamp or transcript quotation for the specific alleged Lucy/Bedard deference exchange. The page deliberately leaves that timestamp open rather than inventing one.

12. The hearing ran 326 minutes, but verifying disputed findings required a $1,515.90 private-pay transcript deposit.
Category/status: Record verification / Transcript barrier documented
Order or official record: The February 11 order rests on testimony, demeanor, credibility assessments, and factual findings from the January 16 hearing.
Challenge or later record: On January 27, the transcript order estimated 326 pages at $4.65 per page and required a $1,515.90 deposit before work began. Audio or a settled statement was requested as an alternative.
Time anchor: Jan. 27, 2026 · 10:29 a.m. order · 10:44 a.m. OTO response · 12:36 p.m. estimate
Source: eScribers/OTO correspondence; audio-in-lieu motion; record-completion timeline.
Limitation: The record supports the cost and access sequence. It does not establish how the Law Court would resolve the underlying factual challenges.

TIMESTAMP LEDGER

Jan. 16, 2026 | 8:30 a.m. | Consolidated final hearing scheduled to begin
Official registry/calendar anchor. The hearing later appears as held before Judge John Lucy.
Source: Registry of Actions / v20-v22 master timeline.

Jan. 16, 2026 | 326 minutes | Reported total hearing duration
The eScribers transcript order identifies 326 minutes for the hearing underlying the February 11 findings.
Source: MEJB11138 transcript-order timeline.

Jan. 16, 2026 | OPEN | Specific professional-deference exchange
No verified audio timestamp or transcript quotation is present in the current public-safe source set. The page does not fabricate one.
Source: Native audio/transcript required.

Jan. 27, 2026 | 10:29 a.m. | Appeal transcript order confirmed
Estimated 326 pages; private-pay posture identified.
Source: eScribers MEJB11138.

Jan. 27, 2026 | 10:42 a.m. | Transcript issue forwarded to OTO/eScribers with counsel copied
Immediate written notice of the access problem.
Source: Gmail/OTO timeline.

Jan. 27, 2026 | 10:44 a.m. | OTO says vendor cannot overrule the judge
The response directs the issue back to the York Judicial Center and says it remains private pay absent a new order.
Source: Carrie Jordan / OTO email.

Jan. 27, 2026 | 12:36 p.m. | $1,515.90 transcript estimate sent
326 pages × $4.65; deposit required before transcription begins.
Source: eScribers estimate.

Jan. 27, 2026 | 12:38 p.m. | Transcript-access material forwarded to counsel channels
Preserved contemporaneous notice of the cost barrier.
Source: Gmail timeline.

Feb. 14, 2026 | 4:20 p.m. | First precise post-order electronic-contact request
Requested the current number and applicable platform so contact could begin.
Source: Feb. 16 compliance email summarizing the thread.

Feb. 14, 2026 | 4:48 p.m. | Counsel’s office says it does not have the order
Requested that the order be scanned and sent.
Source: Feb. 16 compliance email.

Feb. 14, 2026 | 4:52 p.m. | Share link offered because of file size
Immediate attempt to remove the stated barrier.
Source: Feb. 16 compliance email.

Feb. 14, 2026 | 9:38 p.m. | Follow-up requests a Monday call
No contact logistics had yet been supplied.
Source: Feb. 16 compliance email.

Feb. 16, 2026 | 2:42 p.m. | Comprehensive implementation notice sent
Therapy, transport, contact, records, insurance, and authorizations were consolidated in writing.
Source: Implementation of February 11 Order compliance email.

Apr. 24, 2026 | 12:03 a.m. | “Sole gatekeeper” interpretation sent
Timing and scheduling were also characterized as irrelevant.
Source: Direct email thread / v21-v22 timeline.

Apr. 24, 2026 | 12:11 a.m. | “It is verbatim” reply sent
The phrase “sole gatekeeper” does not appear in the February 11 order.
Source: Direct email thread / v21-v22 timeline.

Jul. 27, 2026 | 9:33 a.m. | Annual-physical notice received
The initial notice omitted time, location, attendance details, and direct-access information.
Source: Gmail message inventory / v21 timeline.

Jul. 27, 2026 | 10:44 a.m. | Time, location, attendance, and direct provider access requested
The response asked for the operational details needed to participate.
Source: Gmail thread / v21 timeline.

Jul. 27, 2026 | 11:03 a.m. | Portal access condition captured
The York Hospital portal displayed verification numbers ending in a number the father states was not his.
Source: Time-stamped screenshot / v21 timeline.

Jul. 27, 2026 | 11:16 a.m. | Provider preservation and audit request sent
Requested demographic, proxy-access, appointment-notice, and audit history.
Source: Gmail preservation request / v21 timeline.

Aug. 3, 2026 | ≈10:24 a.m. | Child calls about the father’s presence at the appointment
The source preserves the time and the fact that the child conveyed a belief about whether attendance was permitted.
Source: Contemporaneous notice / call-log reference.

Aug. 3, 2026 | 10:30:20 a.m. | Notice sent to Ms. Morse and Attorney Bedard
Requested identification of what had been communicated and the exact order language relied upon.
Source: Gmail message 19fc808625df0145.

Aug. 3, 2026 | 10:52:34 a.m. | Provider and records-access notice sent
Requested direct medical access, portal restoration, documentation of attendance, and preservation.
Source: Gmail message 19fc81cc1aae4cb9.

Aug. 4, 2026 | 7:32 p.m. | Envelope 257090 submitted
Five separately identified filing components concerning the August 3 sequence and related relief.
Source: Tyler/eFileMaine v22 record.

Aug. 4, 2026 | 9:19 p.m. | Envelope 257100 submitted
Four additional verified filing components submitted the same evening.
Source: Tyler/eFileMaine v22 record.