Weston v. Weston
2012 ME 50
| Me. | 2012Background
- Sharon Weston and Nathan Weston divorced in Massachusetts in January 2005; their adult son Alex has cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, autistic-like behaviors, and scoliosis, and is nearly non-verbal and dependent on care.
- The Massachusetts divorce decree required Nathan to pay child support for Alex as long as Alex is emancipated, defining emancipation by specific age-based and dependency criteria, including continued domicile with Sharon and principal dependence on her for support.
- Since 2008, Alex has lived with Sharon in Maine; Sharon cares for him full-time and participates in Port Resources' Shared Living Option, receiving a weekly stipend as Alex’s direct support provider.
- Port Resources provides Sharon about $30,000 per year as a stipend; the funds are used to cover household and living expenses, and the stipend is treated as Sharon’s income for tax purposes.
- Alex also receives SSI and a state monthly payment, totaling about $5,512.08 annually, with no other direct payments to him.
- In 2011 the district court granted Nathan’s motion to modify child support, concluded Alex was emancipated due to Port Resources funds and state support, and terminated Nathan’s obligation; Sharon appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Port Resources stipend part of 'support' under emancipation? | Sharon argues stipend is representative payee income for Alex, not Sharon's support obligation. | Nathan argues stipend provides direct financial support to Alex, affecting emancipation. | Ambiguous term; remand to treat stipend as Sharon's gross income. |
| Is Alex principally dependent on Sharon for support given public benefits? | Alex remains principally dependent on Sharon for economic and noneconomic support. | State and federal benefits reduce Alex's need for Sharon's support, supporting emancipation. | Alex is principally dependent on Sharon; not emancipated. |
| Should the court reinterpret 'support' to align with intent of the divorce court? | The phrase should reflect the parties' understanding of ongoing care and household support. | The court should rely on the default interpretation of emancipation provisions as written. | Term is ambiguous; interpret to reflect intent of the divorce court. |
| What is the proper remand remedy if the term is ambiguous? | Appellate guidance to reassess all sources of support and adjust obligations accordingly. | Remand for factual development on current income and needs. | Remand for further proceedings; Port Resources stipend to be treated as Sharon's gross income. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewin v. Skehan, 39 A.3d 58 (Me. 2012) (ambiguous divorce-language interpreted to reflect court’s intent)
- Jabar v. Jabar, 899 A.2d 796 (Me. 2006) (modification requires substantial change in circumstances)
- Kirwood v. Kirwood, 539 N.E.2d 79 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989) (indirect parental support (housing, utilities) relevant to dependency)
- Larson v. Larson, 551 N.E.2d 43 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990) (nonmonetary parental contributions inform principal dependency)
- Tatar v. Schuker, 874 N.E.2d 481 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (principal dependency includes housing and related costs)