MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 20 2 1 ME 59 Docket: Ken

- 21

- 83 Submitted

On	B riefs : 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	Law rence	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, t he	court	awarded	the	parties	shared	parental	rights	and2 responsibilities of the	 younge r child	 with	 primary	 residence	 of	 the	 child	 to
Lawrence. By	then,	the	older	child	was eig hteen 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.	§	20 06(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)

. T he	court used the basic weekly	 support obligation	 of	 $264 as set	 out	 in the	 child	 support	 table f or 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 1 5 %	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 ] F ive	months	later,	on	March	1,	2021,	t he	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	 no t a	 proper subject	of prospective child	support,	in	the	amended	child	support	worksheet, th e	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	in justice”	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,	d espite	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	p arent’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 wee kly 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	c hild support worksheets	and	orders	contain multiple errors:

• T he	court failed	to	distinguish	between	the	period s of	time	when the	parents	were	obliged	to support	two	children	and	when they were obliged to	support only	one	child;

• W hen	 creating	 an	 order	 that	 ref lected	 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

• T he	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,	 t he	 court	 should	 have calculated	 c hild	 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,	 f or	 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). [¶1 0 ] 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	did7 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 nin eteenth	birthday

. See 19

- A	M.R.S.	§	2006(11). [¶1 1 ] After	 the	 court	 has	 made	 the	 necessary	 findings	 and	 created accurate	 child	 support	 worksheet s ,	 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 recalculation s 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 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY