Wendell K. Brasier v. Vanessa L. Preble
2013 ME 109
Me.2013Background
- Original 2006 order awarded shared parental rights; Vanessa had primary residence. 2007 modification clarified visitation but left primary residence unchanged.
- In April 2010 Vanessa moved from the mainland (Bremen) to Swan's Island, a location more than 60 miles and a ferry ride from Wendell in Cambridge.
- After the move, visitation and phone contact between Wendell and the children became sporadic and increasingly infrequent; there were multi-month gaps in visits (including two eight-month gaps) and periods with no phone contact.
- Vanessa obtained (and later abandoned) a temporary protection order in 2010 during a custody-related dispute; the order was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
- Wendell filed motions to enforce and modify in November 2012 seeking primary residence; the district court found a substantial change in circumstances and, applying the 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) factors, awarded Wendell primary residence. Judgment affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vanessa) | Defendant's Argument (Brasier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in finding a "substantial change in circumstances" justifying change of primary residence | Evidence was insufficient to show a substantial change since 2007; visitation problems were not the court's fault | Vanessa's 2010 relocation to Swan's Island (over 60 miles and accessible only by ferry) and resultant prolonged disruption of contact constituted a substantial change | Court: Statute presumes relocation over 60 miles disrupts contact; relocation was a substantial change and court did not err |
| Whether awarding primary residence to Wendell served the children's best interests | Change of residence was unjustified and not in children's best interests | Applying the 19-A M.R.S. § 1653(3) factors, Wendell presented credible evidence that the move and visitation breakdown harmed parental contact; Wendell credible, Vanessa less so | Court: Trial court thoroughly applied the statutory best-interest factors, credited witnesses appropriately, and did not abuse discretion; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Neudek v. Neudek, 21 A.3d 88 (Me. 2011) (standard for modifying parental rights—requires substantial change and best interest analysis)
- Desmond v. Desmond, 17 A.3d 1234 (Me. 2011) (appellate review standards for post‑decree modification findings and discretion)
- Sloan v. Christianson, 43 A.3d 978 (Me. 2012) (approving trial court's detailed application of the § 1653(3) best‑interest factors)