Douglas v. Douglas
2012 ME 67
| Me. | 2012Background
- Lisa and Paul Douglas married in 2003 and have a son born in 2004.
- 2008 divorce granted Lisa sole parental rights due to caustic relationship and past allegations of sexual abuse by Paul.
- Paul faced no-contact bail conditions during the 2008 divorce proceeding; after charges were dismissed, contact restrictions were lifted.
- Paul sought modification in 2008 and then emergency modification in 2009 to allow contact with his son; no contact occurred in the interim.
- Guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended phased reunification; Spurwink evaluation found no substantiation of sexual abuse; Paul engaged in therapy and the court approved a gradual, supervised reunification plan in 2011.
- GAL fees arising from a late 2010-2011 billing request were contested; the court approved partial payment but did not issue findings on fees; on appeal, the GAL fee portion was vacated and remanded to reconsider allocation and reasonableness.
- Lisa appealed in 2011 challenging the modification order and GAL fees; the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the modification but vacated the GAL fees portion and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances supporting modification | Douglas argued no articulated best-interest justification | Douglas contends substantial change and best interests support reunification | Modification affirmed; substantial change supported the order |
| Whether GAL fees were properly determined and allocated | Douglas claims fees were not properly supported or allocated | Douglas asserts the court acted within discretion on fees | GAL fees portion vacated and remanded for proper findings and apportionment |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Padolko, 2008 ME 56 (Me. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard in post-divorce modification)
- Bayley v. Bayley, 602 A.2d 1152 (Me. 1992) (need for explicit findings to support judgment on post-decree motions)
- Jarvis v. Jarvis, 2003 ME 53 (Me. 2003) (requirement for findings to support results in Rule 52 motions)
- Greenleaf v. Greenleaf, 2004 ME 149 (Me. 2004) (mandatory explicit findings to inform review)