Opinion ID: 3172171
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Shared Primary Residential Care

Text: [¶18] Simpson next argues that the referee erred by failing to find or explain why shared primary residential care was not in the children’s best interests, and that the judgment, which adopts the referee’s analysis, is therefore deficient. [¶19] Title 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(2)(D)(1) authorizes an award of shared primary residential care and also sets out the requirements that a court must follow when denying a party’s request for such an award: An award of shared parental rights and responsibilities may include either an allocation of the child’s primary residential care to one parent and rights of parent-child contact to the other parent, or a sharing of the child’s primary residential care by both parents. If either or both parents request an award of shared primary residential care and the court does not award shared primary residential care of the child, the court shall state in its decision the reasons why shared primary residential care is not in the best interest of the child . . . . The statute does not define “shared primary residential care” or explain how it might differ from an award of primary residence to one parent with rights of contact to the other parent that would occur at that parent’s residence, which is what the judgment here provided and allowed. Because the court construed the 11 referee’s report as rejecting shared primary residential care, we proceed on that assumption for purposes of our analysis.3 [¶20] Here, the referee’s report did not expressly set out a finding that shared primary residential care was not in the children’s best interests. The referee did, however, rely on and adopt the findings of the guardian ad litem, which, as we have discussed, applied the best interest standard established in Maine law. Based on that framework, the guardian ad litem concluded that the children’s best interests would be promoted if they were to reside primarily with one parent and that, because of her historical role as the children’s primary caretaker, that parent should be Wechsler. See 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3)(B), (E). This is an express conclusion that the grant of the children’s primary physical residence to Wechsler is in the children’s best interests, and an implicit explanation of the reasons why shared primary residential care is not in their best interests. [¶21] The guardian ad litem’s analysis therefore demonstrates that his recommendation arose directly from consideration of the proper statutory considerations and is sufficient to explain the reasoning underlying the parental rights determination, see Grant, 2012 ME 79, ¶ 13, 48 A.3d 789, including the 3 If the residence and contact provisions of this particular divorce judgment are, in effect, a form of “shared primary residential care,” then Simpson’s challenges based on 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(2)(D)(1) (2015) necessarily fail. We need not reach that predicate question, however, because even if the judgment’s parenting provisions are different from “shared primary residential care,” Simpson’s challenges are not persuasive. 12 implicit denial of Simpson’s request for shared primary residential care of the children. The record as a whole is therefore sufficient to support the referee’s recommendation that the children live primarily with Wechsler and have contact with Simpson approximately two days each week. Accordingly, the referee’s recommendation for the children’s primary physical residence, which the court adopted, was well within the bounds of her discretion.