Desmond v. Desmond, 17 A.3d 1234

In 2007, Abby Lear Desmond and Andrew Scott Desmond divorced and unresolved issues regarding their minor child.
Andrew filed a post-divorce motion under 19-A M.R.S. § 1657 seeking modification of the child's primary residence.
The District Court denied the requested change and maintained the child's primary residence with Abby; a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed with fees ordered to be paid by Andrew.
The GAL's involvement occurred against a backdrop of contested custody and contact arrangements, with substantial litigation costs incurred.
The court referenced best-interest factors under 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) in determining the child's residence and contact, ultimately preserving the mother's home as primary residence.
Andrew appeals and Abby cross-appeals, arguing for different fee allocations; the Supreme Judicial Court affirms the judgment and orders specific enforcement of visitation, while noting litigation delay and cost concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court's findings and conclusions are supported by the weight of the evidence.	Desmond argues findings lack weight.	Desmond contends the court erred in factual weight.	No clear error; findings supported.
Whether the court should have given special weight to the GAL's recommendation.	Desmond contends GAL recommendation should have extra weight.	Desmond argues GAL's view is not binding.	No requirement to accord special weight to GAL; court may rely on overall record.
Whether the financial order allocating guardian ad litem fees and Abby's attorney fees was proper.	Desmond challenges bearing all GAL fees and partial attorney fees.	Desmond argues fee allocation was correct based on proceedings.	Judgment affirmed; Andrew liable for all GAL fees and portion of Abby's fees as court ordered.
Whether the court appropriately enforced a visitation/maintenance plan for the child with respect to summer and vacation time.	Desmond asserts need for enforceable schedule and timely visitation.	Desmond contends schedule should reflect best interests and feasibility.	Affirmed; court directed enforcement of summer and school vacation contact schedule with the father.

Smith v. Padolko, 2008 ME 56 (Me. 2008) (limits post-divorce inquiry to events since the most recent decree; reviews for clear error and abuse of discretion)
Sutherland v. Morrill, 940 A.2d 192 (Me. 2008) (infers findings when none requested following judgment if supported by record)
Boulos Co. v. McDevitt, 522 A.2d 1301 (Me. 1987) (unavoidable adoption of the trial court’s factual determinations if supported by the record)