162 A.3d 814
Me.2017Background
- Nicky and Robert Pyle divorced after marriage; they have two children (ages 7 and 11). Nicky worked as a CT scan technician; Robert worked as a scrub technician and ran a landscaping business.
- A stipulated interim order temporarily gave primary residence to Nicky and set interim support.
- At trial the court found Nicky was the primary caretaker (handled medical appointments, counseling for the older child’s allergy-related anxiety, most cooking, school involvement) and that Robert’s multiple jobs limited his availability.
- The court awarded primary residence to Nicky under the "best interest" standard and retained the existing contact schedule.
- For child support the court computed Robert’s income by using business bank deposits (concluding his tax return understated landscaping receipts) and ordered weekly child support of $242.00, which included $61.36 per week for the children’s health insurance ($30.68 per child).
- On appeal the court affirmed the custody and income findings but found the health-insurance component unsupported by the record and vacated that portion of the child-support judgment and remanded to determine the correct amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary residence award | Nicky: She is primary caretaker; award serves children’s best interest | Robert: Trial court erred; Nicky was not primarily responsible for children’s basic needs | Affirmed — trial court’s factual findings supported and no abuse of discretion in awarding primary residence to Nicky |
| Child support — income calculation | Nicky: Use actual business deposits to determine Robert’s gross income | Robert: Court miscalculated business income; tax return is controlling | Affirmed — court reasonably found tax return understated receipts and used deposits to calculate income |
| Child support — health insurance cost | Nicky: Proposed order specified $30.68 per child per week for insurance | Robert: Amount unsupported by trial evidence and disclosures | Reversed as to health-insurance component — court committed clear error; vacated and remanded to determine correct insurance cost |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Gerakaris, 119 A.3d 739 (Me. 2015) (standard for reviewing factual findings)
- Smith v. Padolko, 955 A.2d 740 (Me. 2008) (trial court given deference on credibility and custody decisions)
- Foley v. Ziegler, 931 A.2d 498 (Me. 2007) (standard of review for child support awards)