Gregory R. Flagg v. Shauna K. Bartlett

Alfred, Maine divorce lawyers represented husband and wife in a marriage dissolution case.

[¶2] On July 23, 2012, Flagg filed a complaint for divorce against Bartlett. On November 1, 2012, the Family Law Magistrate (Cadwallader, M.) entered a judgment granting the divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable marital differences and incorporating the parties' settlement agreement, which governed the parties' parental rights and responsibilities and support obligations. The parties' settlement agreement established that the parties had shared parental rights and responsibilities, shared physical residence, and "parenting time . . . on a substantially equal basis" regarding their two children.[1]



[¶3] In accordance with the settlement agreement, the magistrate entered a child support order on November 1, 2012, requiring Flagg to pay $81 weekly to Bartlett. The child support order provided that the support obligation was "based on the fact that the parents are providing substantially equal care" for the children.[2]



[¶4] On March 22, 2021, Bartlett filed a motion to modify Flagg's child support obligation, stating that "[c]hild [s]upport has not been re-visited since the initial order in 2012." On April 23, 2021, Flagg filed a cross-motion to modify. Flagg argued that circumstances had substantially changed since the divorce judgment regarding primary residential care, rights of contact, and child support.[3] The court held a hearing on November 29, 2022. On February 4, 2023, the court entered a judgment denying Bartlett's motion to modify and granting Flagg's cross-motion to modify.



[¶5] The court determined that Bartlett was not providing substantially equal care,[4] granted primary residence of the children to Flagg, and outlined agreed-upon rights of contact. The court stated that Flagg "request[ed] that he not receive child support from [Bartlett]," and it thus did not make specific findings about the parties' incomes. The court ordered a downward deviation from the child support guidelines and did not award child support.[5] The court also stated that Flagg had established a substantial change in circumstances from the original judgment.



[¶6] Bartlett filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for relief from judgment, and for clarification pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 59(e) and M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Bartlett contended that the court had erred because there was not a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of the

residential arrangement and the finding that Flagg provides substantially more towards the children's care was erroneous.

Amended judgment, amended child support order, and order denying motions for findings of fact and conclusions of law vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.