Nancy Bergin v. Daniel Bergin, 214 A.3d 1071

Nancy and Daniel Bergin contested divorce, parental rights for their three minor children, and Nancy sought a protection-from-abuse order; a five-day trial occurred in Sept–Oct 2018.
The District Court awarded Daniel primary residence and final decision-making authority for the children and denied Nancy’s protection-from-abuse request (judgment issued Feb 7, 2019).
Nancy moved for reconsideration and for further findings under M.R. Civ. P. 52(b) and 59(e); the court denied the motion as mere disagreement with findings.
The court made extensive findings on best-interest factors, concluding Nancy’s conduct (interference, frequent moves, limiting contact) had deprived the children of a meaningful relationship with their father.
An expert on parental alienation testified; the court admitted the testimony but gave it little weight and found no parental alienation.
The court found both parties earn or have potential to earn minimum-wage level income and declined continuing spousal support for Nancy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Award of primary residence and final decision-making	Nancy: Court erred and abused discretion in awarding Daniel primary residence and final decision-making	Daniel: Award supported by best-interest findings showing Nancy’s interference harmed father–child relationship	Affirmed — findings supported by competent evidence; award consistent with best-interest analysis and statutory policy favoring relationships with both parents
Admission of expert testimony on parental alienation	Nancy: Expert testimony was unreliable and not credible	Daniel: Expert’s qualifications, methods, and relevance justified admission; testimony aided fact-finder	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in qualifying the expert; testimony met reliability, relevance, and helpfulness thresholds, and court limited its weight
Continuing spousal support	Nancy: Entitled to continuing spousal support	Daniel: Both have similar (minimum-wage level) income potential; support not warranted	Affirmed — trial court’s income finding supported by competent evidence; no abuse of discretion denying support under statute
Protection-from-abuse order denial	Nancy: Court erred in finding she failed to prove abuse by preponderance of evidence	Daniel: Allegations disputed; evidence did not satisfy statutory definition or preponderance standard	Affirmed — credibility conflicts and insufficient evidence; trial court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous

Klein v. Klein, 208 A.3d 802 (Me. 2019) (standard of review for parental rights and motions for further findings)
Pyle v. Pyle, 162 A.3d 814 (Me. 2017) (review standard for parental rights orders)
Nadeau v. Nadeau, 957 A.2d 108 (Me. 2008) (requirement that court analyze relevant best-interest factors)
Sloan v. Christianson, 43 A.3d 978 (Me. 2012) (deference to fact-finder on credibility and weight of evidence)
Tolliver v. Dep’t of Transp., 948 A.2d 1223 (Me. 2008) (expert qualification reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Cookson, 837 A.2d 101 (Me. 2003) (standard for qualifying expert witnesses)
Payne v. Payne, 942 A.2d 713 (Me. 2008) (income determinations reviewed for clear error)
Durkin v. Durkin, 203 A.3d 812 (Me. 2019) (statutory framework for awarding general spousal support)
Walton v. Ireland, 104 A.3d 883 (Me. 2014) (standard for proving abuse in protection-from-abuse actions)
Handrahan v. Malenko, 12 A.3d 79 (Me. 2011) (deference to factual findings supported by competent evidence)
Smith v. Hawthorne, 804 A.2d 1133 (Me. 2002) (credibility determinations in protection-from-abuse cases)