Peter E. Light v. Paola D'Amato
105 A.3d 447
Me.2014Background
- Peter Light and Paola D’Amato divorced after a four-day trial; they have one daughter (b. 2005).
- D’Amato was primary residential parent during proceedings and sought to move to Italy; Light opposed relocation and sought primary residence if she moved.
- The child had established stability in Falmouth (school, friends, after-school care, therapist) and showed separation anxiety; court found prolonged separation from either parent would be harmful.
- Both parents were found capable caregivers; Light has a history of alcohol abuse and pornography use but was actively involved and improving; D’Amato sought to return to Italy to live near family.
- Trial court ordered primary residence with D’Amato while she remained in Maine, but if D’Amato moved to Italy the child’s primary residence would automatically shift to Light and the child would remain enrolled in Falmouth school.
- Court ordered property division, spousal support, and found Light’s RBC Deferred Compensation Plan had no marital value but failed to allocate it; D’Amato’s post-judgment motion to reopen evidence was denied.
Issues
| Issue | D'Amato's Argument | Light's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conditional order (child stays in Maine if mother moves to Italy) unconstitutionally burdens mother's right to travel | The order effectively restricts her right to travel/settle abroad by conditioning custody on her remaining in U.S. | The order does not bar travel; it balances the child’s interests and the parents’ competing rights and is permissible | No constitutional violation; order does not prevent travel and, even if it has collateral effect, the court properly balanced parental and child interests |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion to reopen evidence after judgment | New facts (lost job opportunity in Italy, reduced hours, Light living in Portland) were substantial changes warranting reopening before judgment was final | D’Amato knew or could have presented key facts earlier; reopening post-judgment would be untimely and unfair | No abuse of discretion; denial was within court’s discretion given trial history and timing; modification process exists if circumstances materially change |
| Whether court erred by not allocating Light’s unvested deferred compensation plan | The unvested deferred compensation is marital property and must be distributed | Agreement that it is marital property; court nonetheless failed to allocate it | Vacated in part; remanded for allocation of the deferred compensation as part of equitable property division |
| Whether conditional custody provision is moot (concurring view) | (Argued on appeal) | Court should dismiss constitutional claim as moot because relocation did not occur and the provision’s ‘‘imminent’’ timeframe passed | Concurring judge would dismiss as moot rather than reach merits (majority reached merits and affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Akers v. Akers, 44 A.3d 311 (Me. 2012) (appellate review and deference to trial court factual findings in custody matters)
- Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) (right to travel as liberty interest under Due Process)
- Malenko v. Handrahan, 979 A.2d 1269 (Me. 2009) (need to balance custodial parent’s travel rights with noncustodial parent’s association rights in relocation disputes)
- Rowland v. Kingman, 629 A.2d 613 (Me. 1993) (upholding conditional change in primary residence where staying in locale served children’s best interests)
- Stotler v. Wood, 687 A.2d 636 (Me. 1996) (unvested pension/deferred compensation can constitute marital property for division)
- Brown v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 577 A.2d 1184 (Me. 1990) (Fifth Amendment protection extends to migration intended as settlement)