MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions

Decision: 2014 ME 5

Docket: Aro-13-182

Submitted

 On Briefs: December 13, 2013

Decided: January 16, 2014

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.

JESSICA A. (NADEAU) POTILA

v.

LARRY A. NADEAU

PER CURIAM

[¶1] Larry A. Nadeau appeals from a divorce judgment entered by the 

District Court (Fort Kent, Soucy, J.) awarding shared primary residence of the 

parties’ minor children, determining child support, and allocating the dependent 

income tax exemptions. He contends that because the court erred in perceiving the 

seriousness of Jessica A. (Nadeau) Potila’s substance abuse issues and income 

earning capacity, the court abused its discretion in the challenged parental rights 

determinations. Nadeau also asserts to us, and asserted in a motion for 

reconsideration to the District Court, that a father with the same substance abuse 

issues that he claims the mother has would not have received the shared primary 

residence order issued in this case. Potila cross-appeals the judgment’s finding that 
2

she failed to meet her burden of proving that a portion of the value of the marital 

residence, owned by Nadeau prior to the marriage, is marital. 

[¶2] Despite the highly charged claims of parental incompetence that 

characterized this litigation and the parties’ relationship, there does not appear to 

be any serious contention by Nadeau that the District Court erred in finding the 

facts, except regarding Potila’s earning capacity. Rather, Nadeau expresses 

disagreement with the District Court’s application of its discretionary judgment on 

issues for which it has broad discretion. See Akers v. Akers, 2012 ME 75, ¶ 2, 

44 A.3d 311.

[¶3] The District Court’s opinion demonstrates that it carefully considered 

the evidence in the record and, after that consideration, issued a measured 

judgment that thoughtfully, and with proper explanation, addressed each of the 

issues presented to it for decision. Contrary to Nadeau’s contentions, the court did 

not abuse its discretion in awarding shared primary residence given the evidence 

regarding the past conduct of both parties and the interests of the children. See 

Bulkley v. Bulkley, 2013 ME 101, ¶ 14, --- A.3d --- (“The ultimate determination of 

the weight to be given each factor requires careful consideration by the court and is 

done on an individualized, case-by-case basis.”); Akers, 2012 ME 75, ¶ 2, 44 A.3d 

311 (setting forth the standard of review for a court’s decision regarding primary 

residence). Particularly, it is evident that the court did not discriminate in any way 
3

based on gender or any other status, but instead attempted to respect the direction 

of the statute favoring the award of shared parental rights absent an explicit finding 

that it would not be in a child’s best interests. See 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(1)(C) 

(2013). Section 1653(1)(C) specifies:

The Legislature finds and declares that, except when a court 

determines that the best interest of a child would not be served, it is 

the public policy of this State to assure minor children of frequent and 

continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated 

or dissolved their marriage and to encourage parents to share the 

rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this 

policy.

[¶4] We also determine that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Nadeau a deviation from the child support guidelines based on the shared primary 

residence or in allocating the dependent income tax exemptions between the 

parties. See 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(2) (2013) (requiring a party seeking a child 

support deviation to file proposed findings showing that the application of the 

presumptive amount would be inequitable or unjust); Wong v. Hawk, 2012 ME 

125, ¶ 17, 55 A.3d 425 (“We presume that a trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in declining to deviate if a party fails to present proposed findings supporting 

deviation.”); Johnson v. Smith, 1999 ME 168, ¶ 14, 740 A.2d 579; see also 

Bojarski v. Bojarski, 2012 ME 56, ¶ 25 & n.3, 41 A.3d 544 (setting forth the 

standard of review for allocation of the dependent tax exemption). 
4

[¶5] Contrary to Potila’s contentions, the court did not err in finding that she 

failed to meet her burden of proving the amount of any increase in the value of the 

marital residence attributable to marital funds or labor. See Miliano v. Miliano, 

2012 ME 100, ¶ 25, 50 A.3d 534 (“The amount of the increase in value [of 

otherwise nonmarital property] is an essential element of the proof.”).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

_________________________________

On the briefs:

Theodore M. Smith, Esq., Smith Law Offices, LLC, Van Buren, for 

appellant Larry A. Nadeau 

James M. Dunleavy, Esq., Currier and Trask, P.A., Presque Isle, for appellee 

Jessica A. (Nadeau) Potila

Fort Kent District Court docket number FM-2012-33

FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY