Petersen v. Van Overbeke, 190 A.3d 244

2008 divorce judgment by agreement: shared parental rights; child alternated residence between Minnesota (father) and Maine (mother) every four months; no child support ordered due to travel cost deviation (guideline amount would have been $89/week from father).
2010 agreed modification: child to live with mother during school year in Maine and with father during summers in Minnesota; father required to pay all transportation costs; court again ordered no support based on travel and summer contact.
2017 father (Van Overbeke) filed to modify primary residence to have the child live with him during the school year; case transferred to Belfast and a hearing was held.
Mother (Petersen) filed forms asking the court to review child support and requested an appropriate support order; case management and pretrial orders identified support as in dispute and required income documentation.
Trial court denied the requested change of primary residence but sua sponte (after notice) modified child support, incorporating a worksheet that listed father’s gross income as $80,000 (contradicting the court’s finding of about $60,000), adjusted father’s income only $156 for support of three other children, and omitted health-insurance premium in the support calculation; it ordered father to pay $177/week while the child resides in Maine.
On appeal the court concluded it had authority to modify support but found the worksheet calculations erroneous and remanded for correct calculation.

Issue	Van Overbeke's Argument	Petersen's Argument	Held
Whether the court had authority to modify child support when the father’s motion sought only a change of primary residence	Court lacked authority because neither party moved to modify child support	Mother’s response and court orders put parties on notice that support was in dispute, so support could be modified	Court had authority: mother’s filings and case management orders put father on notice that support might change, so modification under 19-A M.R.S. §2009 was proper
Whether the trial court correctly calculated child support (amount and components)	Calculation was erroneous: income overstated, improper small adjustment for other children, and health insurance not included	Court’s worksheet controls; asked for correct calculation if parties supplied info	Court erred: worksheet contradicted factual findings (income), misapplied guideline adjustment for other children, and failed to include health-insurance premium; judgment vacated and remanded for correct calculation

Ames v. Ames, 822 A.2d 1201 (recognizing that a response to a motion can put a party on notice that support may be changed and permit the court to alter support)
Longo v. Goodwin, 783 A.2d 159 (policy requiring notice to a party who may be adversely affected by a change in child support)
Hinkley v. Hinkley, 749 A.2d 752 (court may fashion awards on issues generated by a pending motion and parties' presentations)
Efstathiou v. Aspinquid, Inc., 956 A.2d 110 (de novo review on whether a court had legal authority to act)
Holbrook v. Holbrook, 976 A.2d 990 (standard of review: abuse of discretion for support awards; clear error for factual findings)
Payne v. Payne, 899 A.2d 793 (trial court exceeds discretion when support order rests on erroneous calculations)
Court v. Kiesman, 850 A.2d 330 (primary purpose of child support is to protect the best interests of the child)