Opinion ID: 1934652
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The asserted factual misreading of the evidence.

Text: Prost contends that the trial judge made numerous factual errors in reciting the evidence, that these infected her critical finding about the relative caretaking abilities of the parties, and that when Prost brought these errors to the judge's attention in her motion to alter or amend the judgment, the judge dismissed them with the observation that, even were all the alleged factual mistakes eliminated from the Findings, she was still satisfied beyond any doubt that ... [her] opinion would not change. Contrary to Prost's argument, we do not regard the asserted factual errors, singly or in the aggregate, as sufficient to undermine the firm foundation the record provides for the judge's ultimate determination. Admittedly, key features of the judge's ruling were her finding that since at least March 1989, [Greene had] been the more nurturing parent of the children, assuming the greater portion of the parental obligations, and the converse finding that Prost is simply more devoted to and absorbed by her work and her career than anything else in her life, including ... her children and her family. Admittedly, too, the judge (relying on her trial notes since the transcript was not then available) made factual errors related to both of these findings. For example, she overstated the frequency of visits (for dinner and overnight) to the marital home by Greene's friend Larry Brown, whose testimony the judge found confirmed Greene's greater involvement than Prost's in handling the daily details necessary to provide for the children's physical and emotional well-being and development. The judge also apparently misunderstood Prost's testimony that she regularly left work at the Senate at 4:30 p.m. when the Senate was not in session to mean that she did so only rarelyfor example, on holidayswhen in fact the Senate is frequently not in session, an error Prost claims seriously distorted the judge's understanding of her work schedule and hence absence from home. These and other defects in the judge's findings, however, [18] are not enough to require the remand Prost seeks. Other evidence, essentially unchallenged on appeal, provides a sound footing for the judge's findings as to the priority each parent gave to the care of the children. Most important is the testimony of the au pair, Stephanie Werner, who was perhaps the closest thing to a disinterested witness able to observe the family at close range for an extended length of time. The judge credited Werner's testimony about Prost's infrequent presence for dinner and absorption in her work even late in the evening, [19] evidence that corroborated the testimony of Greene himself, his sister, and (to the extent shown in the record) Larry Brown. [20] The judge cited concrete events demonstrating how Prost's devotion to her job and/or her personal pursuits often takes precedence over her family. [21] By contrast, the judge heard testimony from Werner, as well as work associates of Greene, supporting a finding that he had prioritized the care and well-being of his children, striking a delicate balance between parenthood and his career. [22] In sum, the factual errors in the judge's recollection or understanding of the testimony did not deprive her decision of the required firm foundation in the record.