Sheikh v. Haji, 2011 ME 117

Haji Haji appeals a District Court judgment awarding Habibo Sheikh primary residential care and final decision-making authority for their three minor children.
The parties, Somali immigrants, married in 2005 in Connecticut without a legally enforceable marriage license; their divorce proceedings were converted to a parental rights and responsibilities determination.
The court found prior abuse by Haji and Habibo’s cognitive limitations, including reading/writing difficulties and an organic mental disorder qualifier for SSI benefits, affecting caregiving capacity.
Habibo moved with her parents in 2006; the family later relocated to Lewiston, Maine; the children were initially in Habibo’s care with a plan for shared parenting and mediation when disputes arose.
The court awarded Habibo primary residential care with final decision-making authority, while granting Haji defined visitation and a structured contact schedule, incorporating cultural mediation avenues.
The court imputed Haji’s income at minimum wage ($15,600 annually) based on his employment history and language barriers, for purposes of calculating child support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court abuse discretion in Habibo’s primary residence award?	Haji argues Habibo’s cognitive limits were not properly weighed.	Habibo contends stability and safety factors favor her primary residence.	No abuse; award supported by best interests and credibility findings.
Was final decision-making authority properly assigned to Habibo?	Haji claims insufficient consideration of both parents' input.	Habibo’s caregiving capacity and risk factors justify decisive authority to her.	Yes; court rationally tied final authority to best interests and abuse findings.
Was Haji’s earning capacity properly imputed for child support?	Haji contends no voluntary underemployment; DHHS argues otherwise.	DHHS asserts evidence shows voluntary underemployment; imputation aligns with capacity.	Imputation supported; court acted within discretion given evidence of underemployment.

Williams v. Williams, 706 A.2d 1038 (Me. 1998) (best interests standard in custody awards)
Nadeau v. Nadeau, 957 A.2d 108 (Me. 2008) (adequacy of best interests analysis; factors not rigidly enumerated)
Koszegi v. Erickson, 855 A.2d 1168 (Me. 2004) (imputing income for child support against unemployment)
Carolan v. Bell, 916 A.2d 945 (Me. 2007) (burden of proving voluntary underemployment; abuse of discretion standard)
Handrahan v. Malenko, 12 A.3d 79 (Me. 2011) (credibility determinations in trial court findings)
Dargie v. Dargie, 778 A.2d 353 (Me. 2001) (adequacy of appellate review; reasoning on factual findings)
Johnson v. Smith, 740 A.2d 579 (Me. 1999) (self-support reserve and parenting-support considerations in child support)