MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions

Decision: 2021 ME	59

Docket: Ken-21-83

Submitted

On	Briefs: October	20,	2021

Decided: November	23,	2021

Panel: MEAD,	GORMAN,	JABAR,	HUMPHREY,	HORTON,	and	CONNORS,	JJ.

ANNALEE	R.	BLOOM

v.

LAWRENCE	P.	BLOOM

GORMAN,	J.

[¶1]		Lawrence	P.	Bloom	appeals	from	a	divorce	judgment	issued	in	the	

District	 Court	 (Waterville,	Montgomery,	J.)	 on	Annalee	R.	 Bloom’s	 complaint.		

Lawrence	challenges	the	court’s	decision	as	to child	support, spousal	support,	

and	the	distribution	of	marital	property.		We	vacate	the	judgment	as	to	child	

support	and	affirm	in	all	other	respects.

[¶2]		Annalee	and	Lawrence	were	married	in	1996	and	have	two	children.		

Annalee	instituted	this	divorce	action	on January	22,	2019.		At	the	time,	their	

older	child	was	seventeen	years	old	and	their	younger	child	was	fifteen years	

old.		

[¶3]	 	 After	 a	 three-day	 testimonial	 hearing,	 by	 a	 judgment	 dated	

September 21,	2020,	the	court	awarded	the	parties	shared	parental	rights	and	
2

responsibilities	 of the	 younger child	 with	 primary	 residence	 of	 the	 child	 to	

Lawrence.		By	then,	the	older	child	was	eighteen years	old	and	had	graduated	

from	high	school,	and	the	younger	child	was	seventeen	years	old.		

[¶4]		As	to	child	support,	the	court	initially	calculated	the	parties’	basic	

weekly	 support	 obligation	 only	 as	 to	 the	 younger	 child,	 given	 that	 the	 older	

child	was	eighteen	years	old	and	had	graduated	from	high	school,	and	therefore	

was	no	longer	a	proper	subject	of	child	support.		See 19-A	M.R.S.	§	2006(11)	

(2021) (providing	 that	 the	 child	 support	guidelines	may	 only	 be	 used	 for	 “a	

child	between	18	and	19	years	of	age”	when	that	child	“is	attending	a	secondary	

school”);	19-A	M.R.S.	§	1653(8)(A),	(12)(A)	(2021).		The	court	used	the	basic	

weekly	 support	 obligation	 of	 $264 as	 set	 out	 in the	 child	 support	 table for	

parents	of	one	child	earning	a	combined	annual	gross	income	of	$120,000	per	

year.

1		See 10-144 C.M.R.	ch. 351,	ch.	6,	§	2	(effective	July	29,	2016);	19-A	M.R.S.	

§ 2006(1);	Foley	v.	Ziegler,	2007	ME	127,	¶	9,	931	A.2d	498.		To	that,	the	court	

added	the	cost	of	the	younger	child’s	health	insurance;	divided	that	amount	in	

half	 based	 on	 the	 parents’	 equal	 incomes;	 and	 then	 deducted	 the	 health	

insurance	cost	paid	by	Annalee,	arriving at	the	total	weekly	support	due	of	$118	

1	 	 Contrary	 to	 Lawrence’s	 contentions,	 the	 court’s	 calculation	 of	 both	 parties’	 incomes	 was	

supported	by	competent	record	evidence.		See	19-A	M.R.S.	§	2001(5)(A),	(D)	(2021);	Ehret	v.	Ehret,	

2016	ME	43,	¶	14,	135 A.3d	101.		
3

to	 be	 paid	 to	 Lawrence	 as	 the	 parent	 providing	 primary residential care.		

See 19-A M.R.S.	 § 2006(3)-(4);	 Foley,	 2007 ME	 127,	 ¶ 9,	 931 A.2d	 498.	 	 The	

court	then	reduced	that	amount	by	$18	(a 15%	downward	deviation)	based	on	

Annalee’s	payment	of	“a	considerable	portion	of	 the	child’s	regular	expenses	

(i.e.,	 for	 clothing,	 test	 fees,	 haircuts,	 shoes,	 and	 extracurricular	 expenses),”	

ultimately	ordering	Annalee	to	pay	child	support	of	$100	per	week	to	Lawrence	

as	 primary	 caregiver	 for	 the	 younger	 child.

2	 	See 19-A	M.R.S.	 § 2007 (2021);

Sullivan	v.	George,	2018	ME	115,	¶	14,	191	A.3d	1168.		Both	parties	filed	timely	

post-judgment	motions.		

[¶5]		Five	months	later,	on	March	1,	2021,	the	court	issued	an	amended	

divorce	judgment and	additional	findings in	response	to Annalee’s	motion.		The	

older	 child	 was	 nineteen	 by	 then,	 and	 the	 younger	 child	 was	 still	 seventeen		

years	 old.	 	 Notwithstanding	 that	 the	 parties’	 older	 child	 was	 not a	 proper	

subject	of	prospective	child	support,	in	the	amended	child	support	worksheet,	

the	court	listed	both	children	and	used	the	basic	support	obligation	 from	the	

child	support	table	that	applies	for	parents	of two	children	rather	than	one—a	

weekly	support	obligation	of	$188	per	child	rather	than	the	$264	that	applies	

2		No	“plain	and	unmistakable	injustice”	is	suggested	by	the	court’s	award	of	a	downward	deviation	

to	Annalee	based	on	her	payment	of	a	greater	portion	of	the	expenses	of	the	younger	child,	for	whom	

Lawrence	is	the	primary	caretaker.		Sullivan	v.	George,	2018	ME	115,	¶	12,	191 A.3d	1168.		
4

when	only	one	child	is	at	issue.		See	19-A M.R.S.	§	2006(1),	(11);	10-144	C.M.R.	

ch. 351,	ch.	6,	§	2.		Then,	despite	using	the	amount	from	the	child	support	table	

for two	children—a	lower	number	because	support	will	be	awarded	to	more	

than	one	child—the court	applied	that	amount	only	as	to	the	younger	child.		To	

that incorrect	number,	 the	court	added	 the	cost	 of	health	insurance	 for	both

children,	yielding	a	total	weekly	support	obligation	of	$241.		The	court	divided	

that	amount	in	half	 to reflect	each	parent’s	equal	share	of	 the	obligation	and	

then	 deducted	 Annalee’s	 payment	 of	 both children’s	 health	 insurance	 costs,	

yielding	 a	 child	 support	 amount	 of	 $68	 due	 to	 Lawrence.	 	 The	 court	 then	

factored	 in	 the	 same 15%	 downward	 deviation,	 reducing	 Annalee’s weekly

child	support	obligation	to $58,	and	it	imposed	 that	obligation	retroactive	 to	

January 25,	2019.3 Using	that	start	date,	the	court	calculated	that	Lawrence	had	

been	overpaid	by	$6,797	in	child	support; granted	Annalee	a	“[j]udgment”	in	

that	amount; and	then	ordered	that	that	amount	would	be	paid	by	Lawrence—

first	through	a	weekly	$40 offset against	Annalee’s child	support	obligation and	

3		The	significance	of	the	January	25,	2019,	date	is	unclear	from	the	court’s	findings	or	the	record.		

It	is	close	to—but	not	the	same	as—the	date	on	which Annalee	instituted	the	divorce	proceedings	

(the	complaint	was	filed	on	January	22,	2019).		
5

then,	when	her	obligation	to	pay	child	support	ended,	through	$100-per-week	

payments.		Lawrence	appeals.		

[¶6]	 	We	 address	 only	 Lawrence’s	 argument	 regarding	 child	 support.4		

We	review	the	factual	findings	underlying	a	child	support	award	for	clear	error;	

the	award	itself,	including	a	decision	 to	award	a	downward	deviation,	 for	an	

abuse	 of	 discretion;	 and	 questions	 of	 statutory	 interpretation	 de	 novo.		

Lawrence	v.	Webber,	2006	ME	36,	¶	6,	894	A.2d	480; Sullivan,	2018 ME	115,	

¶ 12,	191	A.3d	1168;	Akers	v.	Akers,	2012	ME	75,	¶	2,	44	A.3d	311.		

[¶7]	 	 We	 agree	 with	 Lawrence	 that	 the	 court’s	 child	 support	

determination	in	the	amended	judgment	must	be	corrected.		The	child	support	

worksheets	and	orders	contain multiple	errors:

• The	court failed	to	distinguish	between	the	periods of	time	when	

the	parents	were	obliged	to support	two	children	and	when	they

were obliged	to	support only	one	child;

• When	 creating	 an	 order	 that	 reflected	 Annalee’s	 child	 support	

obligation	for	one	child,	the	court	used	the	two-child	basic	support	

obligation	 from	 the	 child	 support	 table	 and	 included	 the	 cost	 of	

health	 insurance	 for	 the	 older	 child’s health	 insurance	 in	 its	

calculations;	and

• The	court applied	its erroneous	support	obligation	as	to	one	child	

retroactively to	 a	 time	 when both	 children	 were	 properly	 the	

subject	of	child	support.		

4		Lawrence’s	other	arguments	are	not	persuasive,	and	we	do	not	address	them	further.		
6

[¶8]		Because	there	were	different	numbers	of	children	to	be	supported	

at	 different	 times	 during	 the	 pendency	 of	 this	 case,	 the	 court	 should	 have	

calculated	 child	 support	 separately for	 the	 different periods	 of	 time.	 	 In	

addition,	 because	 the	 court	 made	 no	 findings	 as	 to	 whether	 one	 parent	

provided	primary	residential	care	for	the	older	child	before	she	“aged	out”	of	

the	child	support	equation,	or	whether	the	parties	provided	substantially	equal	

care,	we	 cannot	 fix	 this arithmetic	error.	 	 See 19-A	M.R.S.	 §§ 2001(7),	 (8-A),	

2006(4),	(5)(E),	(11) (2021).	

[¶9] Given	these	errors,	we	must	vacate	the	amended	child	support	order	

and	remand	the	matter	to	the	District	Court	so	that	the	court	can	make	findings	

regarding	 the	 parents’	 obligations	 for	 the	 older	 child	 in	 order	 to	 properly	

calculate	 child	 support	 retroactively	 as	 to	 her.	 	 Then,	 for	 the	 period during	

which the	parents	were	obliged to	support	both	children,	the	court will have	to	

create	a	child	support	worksheet—or	worksheets,	depending	on	its	findings—

to	reflect	the	parties’	respective	obligations.		See 19-A	M.R.S.	§	2006(4),	(5)(E).

[¶10] For	 the	 period after	 the	 earlier	 of	 the	 older	 child’s	 high	 school	

graduation	or	nineteenth	birthday,	the	court	must	calculate child	support	based	

on	the	younger	child alone using	the	one-child	basic	support	obligation	in	the	

child	support	table and	the	cost	of	health	insurance	for	that	one	child,	as	it	did	
7

in	the	initial	divorce	judgment.	 See 19-A	M.R.S.	§	2006(1)-(4),	(11).		Annalee	

will	be	obliged	to	make	those	payments	until	the	earlier	of	the	younger	child’s	

high	school	graduation	or	his	nineteenth	birthday.		See 19-A	M.R.S.	§	2006(11).

[¶11] After	 the	 court	 has	 made	 the	 necessary	 findings	 and	 created	

accurate	 child	 support	 worksheets,	 it	 must	 address	 any corresponding	

overpayment	 and	 setoff	 provisions that	 are	 necessary.	 	 We	 note	 that	 this	

divorce	has	had	an	extremely	protracted	history	in	the	District	Court	and	direct	

that	the	findings	and	recalculations be	made	as	quickly	as	possible.

The	entry	is:

Judgment	 vacated as	 to	 child	 support	 and	

affirmed	 in	 all	 other	 respects.	 Remanded	 for	

further	proceedings	consistent	with	this	opinion.

Lawrence	P.	Bloom,	appellant	pro	se

Verne	E.	Paradie,	Jr.,	Esq.,	Lewiston,	for	appellee	Annalee R. Bloom

Waterville	District	Court	docket	number	FM-2019-14

FOR	CLERK	REFERENCE	ONLY