Chad E. Bulkley v. Brittany A. Bulkley
2013 ME 101
| Me. | 2013Background
- Parties divorced in 2010; judgment awarded shared parental rights and Brittany primary residence of the child born in 2008.
- After the divorce Brittany moved frequently (multiple states) and for a period lived with the child in the cab of her fiancé’s tractor-trailer; the child experienced illnesses and missed vaccinations during that time.
- Chad had limited contact initially due to work out of state but owned a stable home in Bangor and later kept the child in February 2011 out of safety concerns about the child’s living conditions.
- Chad filed to modify primary residence in December 2011; interim orders prohibited the child from living in the truck and required proof of living arrangements while the case was pending.
- At the December 2012 hearing the court found Brittany’s living arrangements unstable and that the child had received inadequate medical care while with Brittany; the court awarded Chad primary residence as being in the child’s best interest.
- Brittany appealed, arguing the court improperly relied on the parents’ financial situations when assessing the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by considering parents’ financial situations in best-interest analysis | Brittany: socioeconomic status is irrelevant and cannot render a parent unfit absent inability/unwillingness to meet basic needs | Chad: parents’ financial circumstances are relevant when they bear on stability and the child’s safety, medical care, and living arrangements | Court: No error—financial circumstances may be considered when they affect statutory best-interest factors (e.g., adequacy and stability of living arrangements, health care) |
| Whether modification was justified by a substantial change in circumstances since the prior order | Brittany: her moves and living choices do not justify transfer of primary residence | Chad: the child’s unstable living history and medical neglect constitute a substantial change affecting best interest | Court: Found sufficient change and evidence supporting modification to award Chad primary residence |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in weighing factors | Brittany: court gave undue weight to finances | Chad: court considered multiple statutory factors beyond finances | Court: No abuse—court evaluated several 1653(3) factors and had evidence supporting its findings |
| Whether child’s safety and medical needs supported modification | Brittany: denied medical neglect and contested relevance | Chad: presented evidence of missed vaccinations, ER visits, and developmental concerns tied to living conditions | Court: Evidence supported finding that residing with Chad was more likely to protect child’s physical and psychological well-being |
Key Cases Cited
- Akers v. Akers, 44 A.3d 311 (Me. 2012) (standard of review and trial court discretion in custody modifications)
- Adoption of Tobias D., 40 A.3d 990 (Me. 2012) (socioeconomic status alone does not render a parent unfit absent inability to meet child’s basic needs)
- Rodrigue v. Brewer, 667 A.2d 605 (Me. 1995) (best-interest test: think as a careful parent)
- Nadeau v. Nadeau, 957 A.2d 108 (Me. 2008) (court need not address every statutory factor verbatim if overall evaluation reflects best-interest analysis)
- Smith v. Smith, 955 A.2d 740 (Me. 2008) (two-step inquiry for modification: substantial change and best-interest recalculation)
- Costigan v. Costigan, 418 A.2d 1144 (Me. 1980) (weighting of best-interest factors is case-specific)