Cynthia Stacey-Sotiriou v. Eve A. Sotiriou, 106 A.3d 417

Background

Cynthia and Eve are legal parents of a child born in 2006; Eve completed an adoption in Vietnam and the adoption was later recognized in Maine; the parties jointly adopted the child in Maine in 2008.
After their relationship ended, litigation ensued: Eve sought to annul Cynthia’s adoption (denied), and the parties entered various interim parental-rights orders in 2009–2010.
In January 2010 the court issued an interim order giving Eve primary residence; in March 2010 Cynthia obtained sole parental rights after Eve absconded with the child to Greece for ~10 months.
While in Greece, Eve conditioned return of the child on Cynthia agreeing to the earlier January 2010 terms; the parties entered a November 2010 consent judgment restoring Eve’s primary residence and specified contact for Cynthia; Eve returned with the child in December 2010.
Cynthia later filed (1) a Rule 60(b)(3) motion alleging she agreed to the November 2010 judgment under duress and (2) a motion to modify based on a substantial change of circumstances after the child’s return. The District Court granted Rule 60(b) relief, kept the modification motion on the docket, and ultimately (October 2013 omnibus order) modified the judgment, awarding Cynthia primary residence, granting Eve unsupervised visitation, and imputing income to Eve for child support.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's (Cynthia) Argument	Defendant's (Eve) Argument	Held
1. Validity of Rule 60(b) relief vacating Nov. 2010 consent judgment	Cynthia: she agreed under duress after Eve absconded; judgment should be set aside	Eve: Cynthia agreed voluntarily; setting aside is improper and constitutes fraud on the court	Moot on appeal; court’s later final omnibus order resolved underlying custody and modification, so Rule 60(b) issue affords no effective relief; court earlier granted relief but this Court did not reach error review on it
2. Modification for substantial change of circumstances	Cynthia: child’s return and changed circumstances justified modification to award her primary residence	Eve: no substantial change; consent judgment controls	Held: substantial change found; modification awarding Cynthia primary residence affirmed
3. Imputation of income for child support	Cynthia: impute Eve’s prior earning capacity because Eve voluntarily underemployed after quitting prior job	Eve: court should use actual current income (lower) and did not prove voluntary underemployment	Held: competent evidence supported finding Eve voluntarily underemployed; imputing $62,061 earning capacity and $180/week support was not an abuse of discretion
4. Rights of contact / unsupervised visitation despite prior absconding	Cynthia: best interest supports limiting Eve’s contact given misconduct and animosity	Eve: prior misconduct justified restricted or supervised contact; unsupervised overnights inappropriate	Held: trial court properly weighed best-interest factors, recognized bonds with both parents, and permissibly awarded unsupervised contact to Eve; no clear abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of J.S.S., 2 A.3d 281 (Me. 2010) (affirming probate court denial of petition to annul adoption)
Ziehm v. Ziehm, 433 A.2d 727 (Me. 1981) (court acts parens patriae to determine custody in child’s best interest)
In re Janna Lynn M., 793 A.2d 506 (Me. 2002) (intervening final judgment can render prior Rule 60(b) issues moot)
Carolan v. Bell, 916 A.2d 945 (Me. 2007) (standard for reviewing voluntary underemployment and imputation of income)
Grenier v. Grenier, 904 A.2d 403 (Me. 2006) (custody decisions reviewed for clear abuse of discretion)
Akers v. Akers, 44 A.3d 311 (Me. 2012) (weighting best-interest factors is within trial court’s discretion)
Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007) (consideration of rental income in gross income context)