Mills v. Fleming, 166 A.3d 1012

Amy Mills and Roger Fleming, parents of two boys (10 and 8), divorced after a contested issue over the children’s participation in a developmental soccer league.
The parties otherwise agreed to a comprehensive settlement to be incorporated into the divorce judgment; they could not agree on soccer participation or related transportation.
The court found both parents fit and dedicated and found the soccer program beneficial to the children’s athletic and social development, with no harm from participation.
The judgment awarded shared parental rights and equal residential care and ordered that each parent must make a good-faith effort to transport the children to activities; if the resident parent cannot, the other parent has a right of first refusal to transport and assume responsibility.
Mills appealed, arguing the transportation/right-of-first-refusal provision infringed her constitutional liberty interest in child-rearing and that the court abused its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the transportation/right-of-first-refusal provision violates a parent’s constitutional liberty interest in care, custody, and control	Mills: provision constitutes a state intrusion on her fundamental parental rights by forcing participation or delegating decision-making	Fleming/Court: order resolves a parental dispute between fit parents; does not transfer authority to a third party or substitute court judgment for parental authority	Court: No state intrusion; order resolves dispute between fit parents when they cannot agree and preserves ultimate parental authority
Whether the court abused its discretion in ordering continued participation and the default transportation rule	Mills: court unreasonably restricted her exercise of parental authority and erred in factual/legal application	Fleming/Court: findings supported by evidence that soccer benefits children; transportation provision is reasonable and limited	Court: No abuse of discretion; findings supported and order consistent with children’s best interests

Pitts v. Moore, 90 A.3d 1169 (Me. 2014) (discusses limits on state intrusion into parental decisionmaking)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (recognizes parental fundamental liberty interest)
Conlogue v. Conlogue, 890 A.2d 691 (Me. 2006) (parental rights and state intrusion principles)
Rideout v. Riendeau, 761 A.2d 291 (Me. 2000) (when a judgment implicates parental fundamental rights)
Karamanoglu v. Gourlaouen, 140 A.3d 1249 (Me. 2016) (delegation of parental authority to third parties as intrusion)
Violette v. Violette, 120 A.3d 667 (Me. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion review in parental-rights cases)
Knight v. Knight, 680 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1996) (best-interest-of-the-child standard)
Akers v. Akers, 44 A.3d 311 (Me. 2012) (trial courts often face close calls in custody-related determinations)