Arn H. Pearson v. Mary Lou Wendell, 125 A.3d 1149

Background

Arn H. Pearson and Mary Lou Wendell divorced after a contentious, multi-year litigation involving three minor children (born 2001 and 2004 twins); extensive interim orders and repeated court interventions failed to stabilize parenting or the children’s welfare.
The court repeatedly modified parenting arrangements (shared rights, allocations to each parent, then sole rights to Pearson), issued contempt findings, and ordered evaluations, counseling, and a parenting coordinator; the March 2013 final judgment was converted to interim status by agreement in March 2014.
After many further motions and hearings, a December 2014 final hearing produced a judgment awarding Wendell sole parental rights and responsibilities for one year, with a court-ordered therapeutic reunification process to develop a contact schedule and require counseling and parental-capacity evaluations.
The court found the children were more stable when primarily cared for by Wendell, that prior attempts to install Pearson as primary parent had failed, and that high parental conflict required awarding sole decision-making to one parent during the reunification period.
The court also ordered Pearson to pay $3,000/month spousal support and $20,000 in attorney fees (in addition to a prior $10,000 award); Pearson appealed, arguing errors on parental-rights de novo adjudication, the award of sole parental rights, delegated third-party contact control, violation of children’s due process, improper spousal-support findings, and unreasonable attorney-fee awards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of prior orders / preclusion	Prior orders were final or law of the case; court should have deferred and limited relitigation	Orders were interim (March 2014 recharacterization) and best-interest facts evolve; de novo review appropriate	Court may adjudicate de novo; prior orders lacked preclusive effect and law-of-the-case did not require deference
Sole parental rights award	Award to Wendell was improper; court failed to properly apply best-interest statutory factors	Court considered statutory factors and found evidence children were more stable with Wendell; sole award necessary due to parental conflict	Affirmed: factual findings not clearly erroneous; award within discretion to protect children’s best interests
Delegation of contact decisions to counselor	Judgment impermissibly delegated court’s visitation authority to a third party	Reunification process is cooperative; counselor guides parties; court retained responsibility and required Wendell to ensure Pearson contact	Not error: order construed reasonably as guidance rather than unlawful delegation (distinguished from Knight)
Children’s procedural due process rights	Judgment deprived children of procedural due process in affecting familial relationships	Children’s interests are protected via best-interest analysis and guardian ad litem role; no constitutional violation	No constitutional violation: best-interest process satisfied procedural protections (Miller framework)
Spousal support calculation	Spousal support unsupported or disproportionate	Court considered statutory factors (length of marriage, incomes, homemaker role, tax consequences)	Award affirmed as supported by findings and not an abuse of discretion
Attorney-fee award	Court failed to make explicit reasonableness findings and awarded excessive fees	Fee award characterized as part of spousal support; court’s broader findings justify award and parties were apprised of basis	Fee award within court’s discretion; Rule 52 findings and related findings were sufficient

Key Cases Cited

Knight v. Knight, 680 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1996) (court may not make visitation outcome dependent on a therapist’s approval)
Miller v. Miller, 677 A.2d 64 (Me. 1996) (children’s procedural interests in custody disputes are protected through guardian ad litem and best-interest analysis)
Guardianship of Jewel M., 2 A.3d 301 (Me. 2010) (res judicata applied cautiously in family cases; courts must consider changing circumstances affecting child’s best interests)
Gulesian v. Gulesian, 377 A.2d 119 (Me. 1977) (order pending divorce is not a final judgment creating an appeal right)
Miele v. Miele, 832 A.2d 760 (Me. 2003) (court may award reasonable attorney fees based on parties’ relative capacity and fairness)