Timothy G. Dalton v. Sarah H. Dalton, 2014 ME 108

Timothy and Sarah Dalton, married in 2002, divorced May 7, 2013, with three children (ages 10 and 7).
Trial court granted divorce on irreconcilable differences, awarding Timothy primary residence and limited contact to Sarah due to safety concerns from Sarah’s parenting and mental health issues.
Post-divorce, Sarah filed numerous post-judgment motions seeking expanded visitation, parenting coach, GAL fee limits, and other modifications; the court held a two-day hearing on October 1, 2013 and denied or moot all motions in a same-day order.
Sarah offered witnesses at the hearing, including two proposed experts; objections based on leading questions, hearsay, relevance, and qualifications were sustained by the court.
Sarah filed a Rule 52(a)/(b) motion for further findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 8, 2013, which was denied; she appeals challenging evidentiary rulings, Rule 52 ruling, GAL immunity, and alleged need for sua sponte recusal.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirms the judgment, holding issues either nonjusticiable, unpreserved, or not showing abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is GAL immunity enforceable here?	Dalton argues GAL immunity should not apply; seeks potential liability.	Dalton is not seeking damages; immunity issue is hypothetical and not justiciable.	Quasi-judicial immunity barred justiciability; issue not entertaining
Were evidentiary rulings on leading questions, hearsay, relevance, and expert opinions abuse of discretion?	Dalton contends court erred by excluding her leading questions, hearsay, and expert testimony.	Dalton’s objections were properly sustained; rulings were within court’s discretion and grounded in rules.	No abuse of discretion; evidentiary rulings affirmed
Did the court abuse its discretion in denying Rule 52(a)/(b) motions for further findings of fact and conclusions of law?	Dalton argues the court failed to provide additional factual findings and legal conclusions.	Record already contained extensive findings; motion not specific and not required to be granted.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Should the trial judge have recused sua sponte or should we recuse for future proceedings?	Dalton claims bias; requests recusal.	No evidence of bias; judge acted with patience and restraint; no obvious error.	No obvious error; recusal not warranted

Connors v. Int’l Harvester Credit Corp., 447 A.2d 822 (Me. 1982) (justiciability requirement)
Richards v. Bruce, 691 A.2d 1223 (1997 ME 61) (guardian ad litem immunity context)
State v. Vaughan, 974 A.2d 930 (2009 ME 63) (foundational admissibility and Rule 803(6) analysis)
Tolliver v. Dep’t. of Transp., 948 A.2d 1223 (2008 ME 83) (expert qualification standards)
State v. Ericson, 13 A.3d 777 (2011 ME 28) (expert testimony foundational requirements)
Bell v. Bell, 697 A.2d 835 (1997 ME 154) (Rule 52 findings and procedure)
Peters v. Peters, 697 A.2d 1254 (1997 ME 134) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 52)
Bickart, 963 A.2d 183 (2009 ME 7) (relevance determination standard)
Estate of Lipin, 939 A.2d 107 (2008 ME 16) (impartiality and decision-making standards)
Charette v. Charette, 60 A.3d 1264 (2013 ME 4) (recusal standards)