Opinion ID: 2280426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of Change of Circumstances

Text: Mrs. Ziehm contends that there was not a sufficient change in her circumstances to justify the District Court's order changing custody. 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 states that the divorce court awarding custody of minor children shall retain jurisdiction over the parties and may alter its order concerning the care, custody, and support of the minor children from time to time as circumstances require . . . . In discharging its obligation on a motion for change in custody, the burden on the court is to make an independent determination whether the child's interests will be better served by requiring some alternative custody arrangement. . . . . Each case must be decided on its own facts. The problem is how to weigh the objective data and the subjective evaluations to make a satisfactory predictive judgment as to what will promote the best interests of the child. This delicate balancing ... is left to the sound discretion of that judge who has the singular opportunity to observe the individuals involved and therefore is in the best position to act on behalf of the State as a wise, affectionate and careful parent. Costigan v. Costigan, Me., 418 A.2d 1144, 1146-47 (1980). Our review of the District Court's action in changing custody from the mother to the father is limited to determining whether the court abused its discretion. See Absher v. Lacombe, Me., 432 A.2d 1241, 1243 n. 6 (1981); Cooley v. St. Andre's Child Placing Agency, Me., 415 A.2d 1084, 1086 (1980). In our review, we are mindful that the divorce court's discretion is broad and that its judgment, when properly exercised on the basis of the evidence before [it], is entitled to substantial deference. Cooley v. St. Andre's Child Placing Agency, supra at 1086. In the case at bar the District Court judge received ample evidence to justify his order of a change in custody. On the record before him, the judge could have found that since 1978 Mrs. Ziehm had been unable to care for her children, having several times placed them in foster care and having considered the possibility of putting them up for adoption. Additionally, she had been plagued with a series of episodes of emotional instability and had consistently failed to cooperate with the DHS in the foster placement of her children. In contrast, Mr. Ziehm's circumstances since his relocation in Maine have substantially improved. He has obtained full-time employment as a welder, remarried, and obtained a house sufficient to meet the needs of his children and his new wife. Mr. Ziehm's new wife has demonstrated her willingness to care for the girls, having taken care of them while they were in their father's custody from October, 1979, on. On the basis of those relative changes in the situations of the parties, we cannot say that the District Court judge abused his discretion in ordering a change in custody. Since there was an adequate factual basis to support the conclusion reached by the District Court, it would be inappropriate for us to reevaluate the facts from a cold record in an effort to find error. O'Malley v. O'Malley, Me., 338 A.2d 149, 153 (1975). Given the manifest problems burdening plaintiff at the time of the custody hearing, we cannot say that there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the divorce court in deciding that the best interests of the Ziehm children were served by changing custody to their father. The entry must be: Judgment of the Superior Court affirming the judgment of the District Court affirmed. All concurring.