Opinion ID: 3169678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Modify the Divorce Judgment

Text: [¶14] After a full hearing on the motion to modify the previously modified child contact provisions of the divorce judgment, the District Court (Bangor, Campbell, J.) entered a comprehensive written decision in which it carefully considered the evidence that was presented to determine how best to modify the judgment. On one hand, the court acknowledged that there had been a history of conflict and an inability to co-parent between the parties, and found that Cavagnaro would be more likely to encourage co-parenting than Hamlin. See 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)(H). On the other hand, the court also found that all of the children are 3 The Maine Rules of Civil Procedure were recently amended to clarify the recusal procedure. See M.R. Civ. P. 63(b)(2)(A) (“When a party moves for a judge to recuse, the party must include in the motion an assertion of the factual grounds supporting recusal and file with the motion one or more affidavits demonstrating an evidentiary basis for those facts.”). Thus, any confusion regarding this process has been clarified, and the lack of procedural clarity in this case should not be repeated. 9 attached to their home in Maine, where they are involved in the community and have an abundance of family and friends, see 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)(G); the children wish to spend their holidays with both parents, see 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)(C); the oldest child expressed a meaningful preference to live in Maine with Hamlin, see 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)(C); it is important to keep all of the children together because the younger children benefit from the presence of the oldest child in the household, see 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)(B); and all of the children need continuity and stability in their lives, see 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)(D)-(E). The court concluded that these factors outweighed Hamlin’s inability to cooperate and encourage contact with Cavagnaro. [¶15] When, despite the best efforts of concerned judges, two parents cannot find a way to cooperate in their parenting, the court must determine what custody arrangements will further the best interests of the children. See Cloutier v. Lear, 1997 ME 35, ¶ 8, 691 A.2d 660. Here, the court appropriately weighed the best interest factors pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) in written findings, which are supported by the record. See id. ¶ 7. It determined that it would be in the children’s best interests for Hamlin to have primary residence of the children and for the children to spend holidays with both of their parents rather than spending every holiday with Cavagnaro. It recognized Cavagnaro’s frustration but considered its most important responsibility, acting as parens patriae, to be 10 ensuring the children’s stability, mental health, and long-term needs. The court did not err or abuse its discretion in modifying the divorce judgment. See Sloan, 2012 ME 72, ¶ 40, 43 A.3d 978.