Lisa Roalsvik v. Brett Comack, 208 A.3d 367

Background

Roalsvik appealed District Court orders denying her motion to modify the parties’ divorce judgment to make the child primarily reside with her, awarding final educational decision-making to Comack, and increasing Roalsvik’s child support.
The modification standard requires a two-step inquiry: a substantial change in circumstances and whether modification is in the child’s best interest; the parties agreed a substantial change existed (relocations and poor communication).
At a day-long hearing the court heard testimony from both parties, multiple witnesses, and the court-appointed GAL, whose written report and oral testimony supported Roalsvik’s requested primary residency but was challenged on cross-examination.
The trial court stated it valued the GAL’s input but would decide based on statutory best-interest factors and the full record; it ultimately ruled for Comack on primary residence and education and adjusted child support upward for Roalsvik.
Roalsvik moved for reconsideration; the court denied it because the motion rehashed prior arguments and relied in part on events occurring after the hearing (Roalsvik’s new child born weeks after the hearing and Comack’s subsequent job change).
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the record did not compel findings to grant Roalsvik’s motion, the court properly weighed the GAL’s evidence, and denial of reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion; it noted child-support adjustments for post-judgment changes could be pursued separately.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether primary residence should be modified to Roalsvik	Roalsvik argued record and GAL recommendation compelled primary residency with her	Comack argued the full record and statutory factors did not support change to Roalsvik	Denied — evidence did not compel finding that primary residence with Roalsvik was in child’s best interest
Whether court improperly dismissed GAL recommendation	Roalsvik argued the court summarily dismissed GAL’s report and testimony	Comack argued court properly considered GAL but was not bound by recommendation	Denied — court considered GAL evidence, cross-examination raised questions, and court properly exercised independent judgment
Whether denial of reconsideration abused discretion	Roalsvik renewed prior arguments and raised new post-hearing events; argued court should reconsider	Comack argued motion improperly rehashed issues and relied on events outside the record	Denied — motion largely reasserted prior arguments and relied on post-hearing events, so denial was not an abuse of discretion
Whether child support should have been adjusted on reconsideration for new child and employment change	Roalsvik argued new child and changed circumstances warranted immediate adjustment	Comack contended post-judgment events were not properly before the court at reconsideration	Denied as basis for reconsideration; court noted child-support modification may be pursued separately under statutory process

Key Cases Cited

Bulkley v. Bulkley, 82 A.3d 116 (Me. 2013) (two-step modification standard for parental rights)
Little v. Wallace, 142 A.3d 585 (Me. 2016) (movant bears burden to prove modification)
Handrahan v. Malenko, 12 A.3d 79 (Me. 2011) (appellate review: movant must show record compelled findings)
Vibert v. Dimoulas, 159 A.3d 325 (Me. 2017) (trial court entitled to substantial deference on credibility and weighing)
In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (weight of GAL reports is for factfinder)
Shaw v. Shaw, 839 A.2d 714 (Me. 2003) (standards for motions for reconsideration)
Higgins v. Wood, 189 A.3d 724 (Me. 2018) (procedures for prompt child-support modification)
Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Gregor, 165 A.3d 357 (Me. 2017) (preservation of issues for appeal)