Opinion ID: 2444297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Change of Circumstances Finding

Text: [¶ 15] Smith argues that the court made a mistake of fact regarding the timeframe it could consider when it examined whether a substantial change in the parties' circumstances had occurred. Specifically, Smith argues that the court should have considered whether circumstances had changed since the Original Order, rather than since the May Order, because the May Order did not affect custody, but merely dealt with daycare. [¶ 16] In Cloutier v. Lear, 1997 ME 35, ¶ 3, 691 A.2d 660, 661-62, we considered the exact issue presented here. In that case, there were also two prior parental rights orders in place: (1) the original order; and (2) the second order establishing a more specific schedule of contact. Cloutier, 1997 ME 35, ¶¶ 2, 3, 691 A.2d at 661-62. We held that the trial court properly considered evidence as to a change in circumstances only from the second order going forward, not from the original order. Id. ¶ 3, 691 A.2d at 662 (citing Ehrlich v. Bloom, 585 A.2d 809, 812 (Me.1991)). [¶ 17] The May Order was a response to Smith's motion to modify, based upon Smith's contention that he could provide full-time daycare for the child because of his disability status. Although it is true that the May Order dealt with daycare rather than the issue of primary residence, it was the most recent parental rights order in place, and the court could have properly limited the evidence to the time period relevant to the issue before it. [¶ 18] Even if the May Order was not the last custody order for purposes of analyzing whether a substantial change in circumstances had occurred, there is no evidence in the record that the court limited its review of the evidence to only those circumstances occurring since the May Order. Because the court did not apply the wrong legal standard, and there is competent evidence in the record to support the court's factual findings, the court did not err or abuse its discretion in noting that there had been some change of circumstances, but declining to find such a substantial change as would justify a change of primary residence, the only issue unresolved by the parties and presented for decision on this appeal. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.