Opinion ID: 2056781
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other New Issues

Text: [¶ 39] The trust fund resources potentially available to the child and the possible availability of kin for a kinship placement were certainly known and could have been disclosed in the child protective proceeding had the parties chosen to do so. [9] [¶ 40] In sum, the trial court could reasonably determine that the major points of new information or argument offered in support of the 60(b) motions were known to the parties during the child protective proceeding but not disclosed for strategic reasons. Rule 60(b) provides no opportunity to advance a new litigation strategy after-the-fact when an original trial strategy proved unsuccessful. See State v. Cleaves, 2005 ME 67, ¶ 13, 874 A.2d 872, 874; Teel v. Colson, 396 A.2d 529, 534 (Me.1979) (explaining that a party cannot shift ground on appeal and create new theories after being unsuccessful on a theory presented to the trial court).