Neudek v. Neudek, 2011 ME 66

Arthur and Deborah Neudek were divorced in 2006; Deborah had sole parental rights and Deborah's custody was with supervised visits for Arthur.
In 2007, a court modified the decree to grant Arthur unsupervised weekend daytime visitation but allowed Deborah to unilaterally adjust the schedule or impose conditions; overnight/extended visits required conditions including a psychological evaluation and counseling.
In 2009, Arthur moved to modify again; the court found an assault by Arthur in January 2009 and Deborah reasonably suspended visitation; no modification to Deborah’s sole parental rights and responsibilities; appeal dismissed for lack of brief.
On July 1, 2010, Arthur filed a new motion to modify seeking unsupervised visitation including overnights; he claimed increased contact time, counseling, footholds of emotional change, and reduced family conflict.
Deborah filed an affidavit opposing modification, alleging Arthur remained erratic, untruthful, manipulative, and a threat to the children; the court did not hold a hearing on the motion or the motion to dismiss; the court later dismissed Arthur’s motion.
The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a hearing on Arthur’s motion to modify, holding that a hearing is required unless specific conditions under Rule 120(b) or statute are satisfied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a hearing was required on Arthur’s motion to modify.	Arthur asserts substantial changes in circumstances warrant a modification.	Deborah argues no substantial change in circumstances justifies modification.	Yes; a hearing is required to determine substantial change in circumstances.
Whether the record demonstrates a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification.	Arthur cites increased contact time, improved self-control, and treatment involvement.	Deborah asserts no material change and persistent risk to children.	Record does not conclusively show substantial change; remand for evidentiary hearing.
Whether the court erred by dismissing without a hearing under Rule 120(b).	Dismissing precludes proper factual development.	Dismissal was appropriate given lack of substantial change.	Reversed; remand for hearing to determine material change.
Whether sanctions or tailored orders could be used to manage serial modification motions.	Not applicable to the main modification question.	Courts may tailor orders if motions become burdensome.	Commentary only; not necessary to resolve today; possible use in remand guidance.

Copp v. Liberty, 952 A.2d 976 (Me. 2008) (hearing required for parental rights modification; de novo review)
Smith v. Padolko, 955 A.2d 740 (Me. 2008) (substantial change in circumstances prerequisite to modification)
Kinter v. Nichols, 722 A.2d 1274 (Me. 1999) (evidentiary hearing required on modification petitions)
Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 871 A.2d 1208 (Me. 2005) (motion practice in family matters; factual disputes require consideration)
C.E.W. v. D.E.W., 845 A.2d 1146 (Me. 2004) (judicial discretion in family matters; evidence-based decision)