George E. Gooley v. Danielle L. Fradette

Portland, Maine divorce lawyers represented husband and wife in a marriage dissolution action.

[¶2] On August 19, 2016, the court (Cashman, J.) entered a judgment granting Gooley and Fradette a divorce and determining parental rights and responsibilities as to their two minor children. That judgment was modified on November 14, 2016, changing the schedule of parent-child contact to three days with one parent and four days with the other parent, on a weekly rotating basis so as to provide the parents with equal time with the children. On August 18, 2017, the court (J. French, J.) entered a judgment that again modified the divorce judgment, by, inter alia, allocating to Fradette the right of decision-making for the children's education; allocating to Gooley the rights to be informed of the children's significant educational issues in advance and to comment on them, and to have access to the children's educators; maintaining the rotating, split-week schedule of parent-child contact; and awarding Fradette attorney fees.



[¶3] On July 16, 2020, Gooley filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Fradette was willfully failing or refusing to obey the schedule of parent-child contact that was set by the November 2016 and August 2017 judgments. On August 3, 2020, Fradette filed a motion for post-judgment relief, requesting that

the court modify the parental rights and responsibilities of the parties and award Fradette attorney fees associated with her motion. On March 9, 2021, Fradette moved to amend her motion for post-judgment relief to add her post-filing decision to move from Maine to Massachusetts as a basis for modification. The court (French, C.J.) approved the amendment of the motion for post-judgment relief in an order dated October 5, 2021.



[¶4] On October 5, 2021, the court also issued a scheduling order in this matter,[1] and thereafter held a four-day hearing on the parties' post-judgment motions on November 29 and 30, and December 1 and 2, 2021.[2] On April 23, 2022, the court entered its findings of facts, conclusions of law, and judgment on the parties' post-judgment motions. The court denied Gooley's motion for contempt after finding that he had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Fradette had not complied with the contact schedule under the existing court order. The court found that Fradette met her burden of demonstrating that there had been a substantial change in circumstances due to, inter alia, Fradette's plan to relocate to Massachusetts, and granted, in part, her motion for post-judgment relief. The court also awarded Fradette primary residency of the children and the right of final decision-making for the children's education, and awarded the parties shared parental rights and responsibilities in all other respects. The court awarded Gooley contact with both children on the first, third, and, when applicable, fifth weekends of each month; on Wednesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and on Father's Day weekend. The court also provided Gooley with additional contact time with the younger child on the fourth weekend of every month. The court further ordered that if Fradette lived in the greater Portland area, she would be responsible for transporting the children to Gooley at the beginning of his contact period and Gooley would be responsible for transporting the children back to Fradette at the end of his contact period. However, if Fradette relocated outside of the greater Portland area, the court ordered that she would be solely responsible for transporting the children to and from Gooley for his scheduled parent-child contact. Finally, the court ordered Gooley to pay Fradette attorney fees of $30,000.



[¶5] On May 3, 2022, Fradette filed a motion to alter or amend the divorce judgment, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 59(e), which sought clarity on, inter alia, whether she was permitted to relocate with the children to Massachusetts and, if she does relocate, whether the court-ordered schedule of parent-child contact and the transportation obligations for that contact would still apply. In her motion, Fradette also requested, inter alia, that the court modify its April 2022 judgment by eliminating the Wednesday evening parent-child contact if Fradette relocates to Massachusetts; requiring that Fradette provide all transportation necessary for Gooley's scheduled parent-child contact only if she relocates somewhere that is over fifty miles away from Portland; and eliminating Gooley's separate fourth-weekend contact and week-on, week-off summer contact with the younger child so that the children are always together

when with Gooley. On May 6, 2022, Gooley filed a motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.[3]



[¶6] On June 20, 2022, the court (J. French, J.) entered its order on the parties' post-trial motions. The court clarified that, regardless of whether Fradette resides in Massachusetts or Maine, it was in the children's best interests to primarily reside with Fradette and to have frequent and continuing contact with Gooley, including on Wednesday evenings. The court also clarified that the schedule of Wednesday evening parent-child contact remains in effect regardless of whether Fradette relocates to Massachusetts.[4] The court's posttrial order denied all of the parties' other post-trial motions and all other requests for relief that were not expressly addressed in the order.[5]



[¶7] Gooley appealed,[6] and Fradette cross-appealed.[7] See 19-A M.R.S. § 104 (2023); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(2)(B), 2C(2). On November 7, 2022, Fradette moved, pursuant to M.R. App. 3(b), to permit the District Court to enter a judgment on her motion for an award of prospective attorney fees in anticipation of this appeal. We granted Fradette's motion on November 8, 2022, and denied Gooley's motion to reconsider our order. The District Court awarded Fradette $4,000 in prospective attorney fees on January 3, 2023.

The entry is: Judgment on post-divorce motions and order on post-trial motions vacated in part as indicated in this opinion. Judgment and order affirmed in all other respects. Remanded to the District Court to make further findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with this opinion and to amend the judgment or order, or both, as it deems appropriate based on the further findings and conclusions.