1. STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT
Cumberland, 55. Location: Portland
Docket No. FM-08-5IO
Igor Malenko,
Plaintiff,
v. DIVORCE JUDGMENT
(Title To Real Estate Involved)
Lori Handrahan,
Defendant.
Notice of the pendency of this action for divorce has been duly and
seasonably given according to law. A final hearing was conducted on December
8, 2008 through December 9, 2008. Plaintiff appeared, and was represented by
Michael Waxman, Esq. Defendant appeared, and was represented by Kenneth
Altshuler, Esq. The Guardian ad litem, Elizabeth Stout, Esq., appeared,
presented reports with recommendations and testified. The court also took
testimony from both of the parties and from five witnesses called by Defendant.
Numerous exhibits were admitted into evidence. The Report of the Guardian ad
litem dated October 23, 2008 and her Supplemental Report dated December 5,
20081 were admitted into evidence pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1507.
The court finds the essential facts in this matter are as follows.
The parties were married in Maine on May 30, 2006, and Maine has both
subject matter and personal jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff and Defendant
met in Plaintiff's birthplace, Macedonia, in May of 2005. Their relationship
continued in Holland, where Plaintiff was residing at the time, and in the spring
of 2006, the parties moved to the United States. In early 2006 Defendant became
pregnant with the parties' daughter, Mila. Mila was born on November 29,2006.
I Defendant objected to the portions of the Supplemental Report containing reference to
social science studies, treatises and articles regarding the relocation of children because
the Defendant did not have adequate opportunity to consider those materials and
potentially offer materials in rebuttal. The court finds the Supplemental Report very
useful apart from the studies, treatises and articles cited in it, and is considering the
Supplemental Report on that basis.
2. Based upon the evidence presented at trial, both of the parties are very
intelligent, and they both love Mila very much.
Plaintiff was born in Ochrid, Yugoslavia (now Macedonia) in 1972. He is
36 years old. He moved from Macedonia to Holland. While residing in Holland,
he attended a technical college, but he did not graduate. He is a certified swim
teacher. Currently, he works at Idexx Laboratories as a laboratory technician.
He earns about $25,000.00 per year. He also attends Southern Maine Community
College and plans to transfer to the University of Southern Maine to eventually
obtain a degree in biotechnology.
Defendant was born in 1969 and is 39 years old. She obtained her Ph.D. in
Sociology in 2001 from the London School of Economics and Political Science.
She is currently a Senior Gender Advisor for CARE International. Her income is
$87,000.00 per year.
The primary issue for the court's determination in this case is the parental
rights and responsibilities of the parties relating to Mila. This issue is hotly
contested and very contentious. Plaintiff claims that he is not mentally ill, nor
does he have any significant psychological problems that impede his ability to be
a safe, prudent and caring parent. He urges the court to order shared parental
rights with primary residence being allocated to Defendant, provided she stays
here in Maine. Further, he requests the court to order unsupervised contact
between he and Mila with liberal visitation. Defendant claims that Plaintiff has
significant mental illness, he is violent and abusive, and he poses a significant
risk to Mila's well being. She urges the court to order sole parental rights to her
(even if she relocates out of state) and supervised visitation to Plaintiff.
The parties' divergent positions place the court in a precarious position,
because if it incorrectly assesses the facts of this case, it places Mila at risk of
harm in one form or another. The Guardian has nicely stated the court's
dilemma in determining the issue in her Supplemental Report. She accurately
and succinctly characterizes the two types of potential harm that can come to
Mila in the context of each of the parties' positions. She then considers the
probability of each of those two types of harm coming to pass. Based upon all of
the evidence presented, the court agrees with the Guardian's opinion that it is
unlikely that Plaintiff poses a risk of harm to Mila.
Defendant claims that Plaintiff is a violent and dangerous batterer, and
that placing Mila in his care unsupervised will subject her to risk of physical
harm. Defendant made allegations about specific instances of Plaintiff's conduct
to illustrate her claim. In addition to weekly "rage attacks"2 where Plaintiff used
awful language directed at her, Defendant pointed to five alleged instances of
violent conduct by Plaintiff. The first incident occurred when Plaintiff was in
2 Defendant claims one of the rage attacks occurred in front of Dr. David Pritchard during
a marital therapy session. Defendant testified that Plaintiff said he would "finish me off
and snap my neck." Dr. Pritchard has said that no such incident occurred at all.
2
3. high school in Macedonia. During a soccer game, Plaintiff and a friend became
involved in a physical dispute. Plaintiff apparently "head-butted" the friend,
causing the friend to fall and strike his head. The friend lapsed into a coma and
sustained serious injury. The matter was litigated in Macedonian juvenile court,
and a finding was made that the act was one of negligence with no intention to
harm. Defendant asserts that this event has significance to the issue of Plaintiff's
alleged violent nature, but this court accepts the Macedonian court's findings
that the event was one of negligence occurring during a heated athletic contest.
The second incident of alleged violent conduct by Plaintiff is a food-
throwing incident that Defendant claims occurred prior to Mila's birth.
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff threw hot chicken at her when she didn't arrive
at the dinner table quickly enough after Plaintiff had cooked the meal. Plaintiff
claims that this incident did not occur.
The third incident occurred within three months after Mila's birth.
Defendant claims that as she was breast-feeding Mila on a bed, Plaintiff threw a
sweater at her during a dispute. Defendant says the sweater hit her and Mila.
Plaintiff has acknowledged that the incident occurred, but claims that he threw
the sweater on the bed and that it did not hit Defendant or Mila.
The fourth incident occurred during a discussion the parties were having
about a home purchase. Defendant claims she was breast-feeding Mila during
the discussion. A dispute arose about the type of house the parties were
considering. Plaintiff went into a rage and rushed at her. She raised her arm
defensively, Plaintiff slapped it hard twice and walked out of the room. Plaintiff
claims that the incident occurred, but that Defendant was pointing her finger in
his face making accusations that he was not being supportive and spending too
much money. Plaintiff claims that he swiped at Defendant's hand and walked
out of the room.
The fifth incident occurred at the lunch table. Again, the parties were
having a dispute about their home purchase and about the hiring of a nanny for
Mila. Defendant claims that Plaintiff raised a fist and she ducked. She felt a jar
hit her head and thought that she might have sustained a "mild concussion."
She called the South Portland Police to respond and they did so. Plaintiff claims
that the incident occurred, but that he swept a plastic peanut butter jar off the
table and it didn't hit Defendant at all. Defendant testified on cross-examination
that the police officers did not examine her head when they met with her. That
seems implausible. Moreover, although the observations of the police officers
regarding the incident were not fully developed, Defendant acknowledged that
the police report notes that she had no bruising, abrasion or complaint of pain.
Defendant believes that Plaintiff suffers from Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, and she has insisted that he see mental health professionals to address
this perceived problem. Plaintiff has acquiesced in her requests that he be
3
4. examined3, and each time he was evaluated, there were no indications that he
was mentally ill at all. Defendant claims all of these mental health professionals
are incompetent because they don't see that Plaintiff has PTSD.
Defendant has insisted that Plaintiff take medication not prescribed to him
because, based on her research, Plaintiff needs the drugs to deal with a mental
illness (that he does not have). Defendant even tried (unsuccessfully) to get
Plaintiff to sign a health care power of attorney. Plaintiff actually did take some
of the drugs that Defendant insisted he needed. He did so because Defendant
used her superior position (both financially and with regard to Plaintiff's Green
Card status) as leverage to get him to comply with her wishes.
While the parties resided for a short period of time in Budapest, Hungary,
Defendant staged two bizarre incidents fueled by her unwavering belief that
Plaintiff is mentally ill. In one of the incidents, she called a Hungarian medical
team to the parties' residence to evaluate Plaintiff in what has been described as
an "intervention." Plaintiff had no idea that she was doing this. The medical
team performed an evaluation and left the residence, concluding that Plaintiff
had no need for any medical attention.4
The second incident occurred four or five days after the first. In this
second incident, Defendant telephoned Plaintiff's father in Macedonia, again
without Plaintiff knowing she was doing this. Defendant insisted that Plaintiff
talk with his father about Plaintiff's allegations that his father had mistreated him
as a child. Shortly thereafter, Defendant left the residence, and within a few
minutes of her leaving, an ambulance arrived for Plaintiff, responding to a report
that he was mentally ill. Plaintiff asked the ambulance crew to speak with the
medical team that had evaluated him days before, which they in fact did. The
ambulance team left the residence a short time later.
Dr. Carol Lynn Kabacoff examined both of the parties pursuant to a
referral from the Guardian. Dr. Kabacoff is a licensed psychologist specializing
in clinical and forensic assessment, including evaluation of parental capacity.
After a complete evaluation5, Dr. Kabacoff presented her Parental Capacity
Evaluation/Family Assessment of both Plaintiff and Defendant. Although Dr.
Kabacoff did not specifically state so 'in her written report, she made a finding
that Defendant has a narcissistic personality. On the other hand, Dr. Kabacoff
found that Plaintiff is not mentally ill at all. The court finds Dr. Kabacoff's report
and her testimony to be very credible. Her findings are corroborated by the fact
that other mental health professionals have made similar findings regarding
3 Plaintiff has been separately examined by a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a Hungarian
psychiatric medical team.
4 A more complete account of this event is contained in Dr. Kabacoff s report in the form
of a translated report of the medical team.
5 Dr. Kabacoff testified that the evaluation of the parties was the most expensive one that
she has ever done because it was complex, it involved numerous phone calls from
attorneys and she was "inundated" with material from the parties.
4
5. Plaintiff. They are also corroborated by the evidence of Defendant's behavior
and by her testimony at trial. As previously mentioned, Defendant's quest to
obtain a PTSD diagnosis regarding Plaintiff has not only been unsuccessful, it
has resulted in some suggestion from physicians that Defendant herself may
require mental health treatment.6 True to Dr. Kabacoff's evaluation and
observations, Defendant has angrily rejected those suggestions, claimed the
doctors who made them are incompetent, and she has unsuccessfully continued
to seek a mental health professional who will agree with her "diagnosis" of
Plaintiff.
The court finds Plaintiff's testimony credible. His demeanor while
testifying appeared appropriate and many of his assertions are corroborated by
other evidence. On the other hand, the court does not find Defendant's
testimony to be very credible. This may be related to the observation made by
both Dr. Kabacoff and the Guardian that Defendant seems to perceive events
differently than others. In any event, Defendant maintained a very defensive
demeanor while she testified, and her answers, particularly on cross-
examination, indicated a lack of candor. Additionally, some of Defendant's
assertions are refuted by other evidence.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS the following:
I. DIVORCE GRANTED
The court grants a divorce to the parties upon the grounds of
irreconcilable mari tal differences.
II. CHILDREN OF THE PARTIES
The parties have one minor child born to this marriage, Mila Malenko,
born November 29,2006.
III. PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Shared Parental Rights. Shared parental rights and responsibilities are
allocated to the parties. As used in this Order, "Shared Parental Rights and
Responsibilities II means that most or all aspects of a child's welfare remain the
joint responsibility and right of both parents, so that both parents retain equal
parental rights and responsibilities, and both parents confer and make joint
decisions regarding the child's welfare. Matters pertaining to the child's welfare
include, but are not limited to, education, religious upbringing, medical, dental,
and mental health care, travel arrangements, child care arrangements and
6 The suspicion that Defendant may benefit from a mental health evaluation and possible
treatment was apparently shared by Dr. Sean McCloy at Maine Integrative Wellness and
by Dr. Robert McCarley at Maine Medical Center.
5
6. residence. Parents who share parental rights and responsibilities shall keep one
another informed of any major changes affecting the child's welfare and shall
consult in advance to the extent practicable on decisions related to the child's
welfare.
B. Primary physical residence. Primary physical residence of Mila is
allocated to Defendant. There was some indication made at trial that Defendant
may intend to relocate to the Washington, D.C. area in a job-related move. The
court finds that it is in the best interest of Mila that she has frequent and
continuing contact with both of her parents. Therefore, primary physical
residence of Mila is allocated to Defendant provided she remains in the State of
Maine. If Defendant does in fact relocate out of state, primary physical residence
of Mila shall be granted to Plaintiff.
C. Psychological treatment of the parties. The court is mindful of the
importance of cooperation between divorced parents in parenting their children.
Such cooperation is one of the statutory factors the court considers in making its
parental rights and responsibilities determination. Because the evidence shows
that Defendant has oppositional tendencies, the court has some concern
regarding Defendant's ability to cooperate with Plaintiff in the parenting of Mila.
Based upon the evidence presented, the court also finds that Defendant may be
less inclined than Plaintiff to facilitate Mila's continuing contact with, and
affection for her other parent. The Guardian suggests that a parenting
coordinator would be very helpful in helping the parties negotiate the co-
parenting of Mila post-divorce. Defendant has expressed some reluctance to
entering into a contract with a parenting coordinator. As stated above, the court
has allocated primary physical residence of Mila to Defendant, but it does so
with some trepidation.
The court finds that it will be beneficial for Plaintiff to attend biweekly
sessions with Dr. Pritchard, and Plaintiff is ordered to do so. The court also finds
that it will be important for Defendant to become better suited to cooperate in the
co-parenting of Mila, and to foster Mila's relationship with Plaintiff. Dr.
Kabacoff has suggested that dialectical behavioral therapy will likely be
beneficial to Defendant in helping her to do these important things. Defendant is
ordered to engage in a course of dialectical behavioral therapy. If Defendant fails
to do so within sixty days of this Judgment, such failure can be ground for
Plaintiff to file a Motion to Modify the court's parental rights and responsibilities
determination.
D. Contact. Plaintiff is allocated parental contact with Mila as follows:
For the next six months, Plaintiff shall have unsupervised contact with
Mila on Monday, Wednesday and Friday of each week. Plaintiff shall pick-up
Mila at Connections for Kids at 9:00 AM. Plaintiff shall drop-off Mila at
Connections for Kids at 4:00 PM. The court shall schedule a review of this matter
in July, 2009. At this review, if it appears that Plaintiff's visits with Mila have
gone well, and if Plaintiff has moved into a two-bedroom residence, Plaintiff
shall have one overnight visit with Mila per week. This overnight visit shall
6
7. begin at 9:00 AM on Saturday morning, with Plaintiff picking Mila up at
Defendant's residence at that time. This overnight visit shall conclude at 9:00
AM on Sunday morning, with Plaintiff dropping Mila off at Defendant's
residence. In addition, Plaintiff shall continue to have two daytime visits with
Mila per week, from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM every Tuesday and Thursday.
In the event that Plaintiff's visits with Mila have gone well, after an
additional six months have passed, beginning January, 2010, Plaintiff shall have
two overnight visits with Mila per week. These overnight visits shall take place
beginning at 6:00 PM on Friday night with Plaintiff picking Mila up at
Defendant's residence. The overnight visits shall conclude at 6:00 PM on Sunday
night with Plaintiff dropping Mila off at Defendant's residence. Plaintiff shall
continue to have a daytime visit with Mila every Wednesday from 9:00 AM to
4:00 PM. In addition:
-Mila shall spend 6:00 PM Christmas Eve through noon on Christmas Day
with Plaintiff on even-numbered years. She shall spend 6:00 PM Christmas Eve
through noon on Christmas Day with Defendant on odd-numbered years.
-Plaintiff shall have Mila on Thanksgiving Day from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM
in all odd-numbered years. Defendant shall have Mila on Thanksgiving Day
from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM in all even-numbered years.
-Beginning when Mila enters Kindergarten, Plaintiff shall have her during
the February vacation in all odd-numbered years. Defendant shall have Mila
during the February vacation in all even-numbered years.
-Beginning when Mila enters Kindergarten, Plaintiff shall have her during
the April vacation in all even-numbered years. Defendant shall have Mila
during the April vacation in all odd-numbered years.
-Plaintiff shall have Mila on all Father's Days from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
-Defendant shall have Mila on all Mother's Days from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
-Plaintiff shall have Mila on Easter from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM in all odd-
numbered years. Defendant shall have Mila on Easter from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM
in all even-numbered years.
-Plaintiff shall have Mila on July 4th from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM in all even-
numbered years. Defendant shall have Mila on July 4th from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM
in all odd-numbered years.
Plaintiff shall have Mila on Halloween from 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM in all odd-
numbered years. Defendant shall have Mila on Halloween from 3:00 PM to 7:00
PM in all even-numbered years.
-Plaintiff shall have contact with Mila on her birthday, November 29th,
from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
7
8. The parties may agree orally or in writing to vary this schedule to
accommodate events and needs, or may agree in writing to change it, but in the
event they are not in agreement concerning variations or changes, this schedule
governs.
E. Notifications. In the event Mila is hospitalized, each parent shall
immediately notify the other of the nature and extent of such hospitalization,
Mila's location, and the expected duration of said hospitalization. Each parent
shall keep the other informed, when asked at reasonable times, as to the health,
welfare and whereabouts of Mila and any significant recent and relevant facts or
factors in Mila's life; if either parent has any knowledge of any illness or accident
or other circumstances seriously affecting Mila's health or general welfare, that
party shall promptly notify the other of such circumstance.
F. Access to Records. Each parent shall have access to records and
information pertaining to Mila including, but not limited to, medical, dental, and
school records, whether or not Mila resides with the parent.
G. Relocation of Children. A parent who intends to relocate Mila's
residence must provide the other parent prior notice at least 30 days before the
intended relocation. If the relocation must occur in less than 30 days, the parent
who is relocating shall provide notice as soon as possible to the other parent. If
the parent who is relocating believes notifying the other parent will cause danger
to the parent or the child, the parent shall notify the District Court of the
intended relocation, and the District Court shall provide appropriate notice to
the other parent in a manner determined to provide safety to the relocating
parent and child.
H. Permanent injunctions. Both parties are restrained and enjoined from
manifesting any form of conflict with each other, including, but not limited to
assaulting, threatening, harassing, intimidating or arguing with the other party
in the presence of, or within the hearing of Mila. Both parties are restrained and
enjoined from disparaging each other, or their respective family members,
friends or associates in the presence of, or within the hearing of, Mila. Both
parties are restrained from discussing the details of this litigation with Mila, or
with each other in the presence or hearing of Mila. Both parties are restrained
and enjoined from exercising undue influence over Mila with respect to this
litigation. Undue influence includes, but is not limited to, coaching Mila as to
what to say in court, or orchestrating her actions with respect to the court or the
other party.
Both parties are hereby instructed that neither shall leave any sort of
telephone message, voice mail message, e-mail communication, or other written
or verbal form of communication which would be likely to be seen or heard by
Mila which contains any harmful, derogatory, demeaning, or spiteful comments
concerning the other parent, Mila, the family's dynamics or the family finances
or living arrangements.
8
9. Neither party may utilize Mila as a source of information, nor inquire of
Mila, with respect to the activities, finances, social relationships, or personal
affairs of the other parent. Neither parent may inquire of Mila about, or pressure
Mila to discuss, the other parent's current emotional, psychological, or social
status or relationships.
Neither parent shall harass, interfere with, molest, disturb the
employment of or disturb the peace of the other parent or come in the vicinity of
the other parent's home or place of employment for such purposes.
Each parent shall exert every effort to foster a feeling of affection between
Mila and the other parent. Neither parent shall do anything that may estrange
Mila from the other parent nor injure any of Mila's opinions of her father or
mother. Neither parent may do or say anything that may hamper the free and
natural development of Mila's love and respect for the other parent.
I. Sanctions. Violation of this Judgment may result in a finding of
contempt and imposition of sanctions pursuant to 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1653(7). Such
sanctions may include one or more of the following: (1) require additional or
more specific terms and conditions consistent with the Order, (2) order that
additional visitation be provided for a parent to take the place of visitation that
was wrongfully denied or in violation of this Order, or (3) order a parent found
in contempt pay a forfeiture of at least $100.
IV. GUARDIAN AD LITEM.
The Guardian ad litem shall submit an affidavit indicating her
outstanding fees. Payment of the outstanding balance of the Guardian ad litem's
fees is allocated 22% to Plaintiff and 78% to Defendant. Payment of the fees shall
be made in full within sixty days of this Judgment. The Guardian's appointment
is extended beyond the entry of this judgment so that she may assist in making
referrals to Defendant regarding dialectical behavioral therapists, if requested,
and to assist the court in assessing the circumstances of the parties at the six-
month review described above.
V. CHILD SUPPORT
A. Regular Support. The court has made certain findings regarding the
parties' incomes and Parental Support Obligations set forth in the Child Support
Worksheets, which are attached and incorporated by reference. The attached
Child Support Orders and Immediate Income Withholding Order are also
incorporated by reference.
B. Tax Exemptions.
Defendant shall claim Mila as a dependent for Federal and State Income Tax
purposes and shall receive any associated tax credits until Mila is no longer eligible.
9
10. So long as an obligation for child support exists, on or before the first day
of May of every year the parties shall exchange either photocopies of their
federal tax returns or an affidavit concerning their current income. This affidavit
shall include the name and address of the employer, the amount of gross wages
and/ or salary earned for a typical work week, the amount and source of any
additional income, and the amount of gross income received during the
preceding tax year.
C. Security. Plaintiff shall maintain a term life insurance policy in the face
amount of $50,000 for the duration of any child support obligation under this
Judgment. Plaintiff shall pay for the cost of the annual premium. Plaintiff shall
name Defendant as sole beneficiary of the policy with Mila as beneficiary should
Defendant not survive Plaintiff. This policy shall become effective no later than
thirty days after the date of this Judgment and Plaintiff shall frovide to
Defendant an annual Certificate of Insurance on or before the 30 day and
thereafter on or before each annual renewal date the obligation is in place.
VI. SPOUSAL SUPPORT.
No spousal support has been requested and none is awarded.
Accordingly, neither party may seek to institute a spousal support order in the
fu ture.
VII. PROPERTY ISSUES
A. Non-marital property. The court determines that there is non-marital
property, which is allocated and set aside to the parties as follows:
Item Defendant
Plaintiff Approximate X X
B. Retirement Assets. The court divides the parties' retirement assets as
follows:
Asset Defendan t
Plaintiff Approximate X X
plans (if any)
10
11. x
x
C. Intangible Property. The court divides the parties' other intangible
personal assets as follows:
Asset Plaintiff
Defendant Approximate X X
al Checking & Accounts
Defendant's Personal Checking
D. Real Estate. The real estate located at 28 Franklin Terrace, South
Portland, and more fully described in a deed recorded at the Cumberland
County Registry of Deeds at Book 25129 and Page 97 is allocated to Defendant.
Defendant shall be solely responsible for all debt associated with this real estate,
and Defendant shall hold Plaintiff harmless with regard to all debt associated
with this real estate.
E. Remaining Personal Property. Except as otherwise set forth below,
each party has in his or her respective possession the remaining personal
property each wants. Accordingly, such remaining personal property is set aside
and awarded to the party in whose possession such property reposed on the date
of trial.
The court divides the remainder of the parties' tangible personal assets as
follows:
Item Defendant
Plaintiff Approximate X X
if any)
Except as otherwise set forth below, if any debt is associated with any of the
foregoing personal property, the party receiving such property shall be
11
12. exclusively responsible for the satisfaction of such debt and shall hold the other
party harmless upon any such debt.
VIII. DEBT
The court allocates existing debt as follows:
of
DebtDr.
$6,400.00 fees
50%
50%
Defendant %
Plaintiff % Approximate
Each party shall assume responsibility for the debt as allocated above and
shall hold the other harmless from any liability arising from it. All other debt
which is not otherwise addressed in this Divorce Judgment shall be the sole
responsibility of the party in whose name it was incurred.
IX. COUNSEL FEES.
Each party shall be responsible for paying his or her own counsel fees.
X. OUTSTANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER
The outstanding Order for Protection From Abuse in PA-OB-60S dated
June 6, 200B is dismissed in view of this Judgment.
XI. MISCELLANEOUS.
Each party shall execute and deliver to the other within 30 days any
authorizations, title documents, instruments of conveyance or other documents
as may be necessary to effectuate the allocation of property and debts made by
this Judgment. Each party shall conclude any physical transfers of property
ordered by this judgment within 30 days. Each party shall indemnify and hold
the other harmless for any costs incurred as a result of a failure by the other party
to comply with this order. Any unpaid obligations from one party to the other
shall accrue interest at the statutory rates as set by 14 MRSA § 1602-C(1)(B).
Execution(s) may issue on request as provided by M.R.Civ.P. 69.
The Clerk is directed to make the following entry in the civil docket
pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a): Divorce Judgment, including Child Support and
Immediate Income Withholding and Conditional Income Withholding Orders
entered. This Judgment is incorporated into the docket by reference at the
specific direction of the Court."
12
13. Dated: J d-'" d- q - fb
Jeff Moskowitz, Judge
Maine District Court
13
14. STATE OF MAINE
DISTRICT GQURT •
Location Y 0 r·t..~
Docket No. FM-O'2S'-S"_O __
Plaintiff
vs. CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET
Defendant
I. a. Primary care provider (parent children live with most of the time): Plaintiff 0
)([Defendant Both 0
If parents provide substantially equal care, higher income parent should be shown as the n~n-primary care provider.
b. Parent providing health insurance for the children: 0 Plaintiff ~Defendant 0 Neither
Date of Birth Child's Name Date of Birth
2. cN~r::mMo..~k - J.." ..... ("
<;)
Yearly Amounts Primary Care Provider Non-Primary Care Provider Combined Income
o Self-support reserve
o Below poverty level
3. Gross income $ $ :>.S,OOC -cO
4. Minus other obligations
a. Support paid to former spouse a. a. o
b. Support paid for other children b. b. a
c. Other children living with non-primary care c.
rovider (See instructions on reverse side.)
5. Total of 4a, b, & c
6. Adjusted Yearly Gross Income a.
(Subtract line 5 from line 3)
7. Share of Gross Income a. b. (Add 6a & 6b)
(Divide each parent's income by combined· % %
income)
"18
8. Basic weekly support for all children up to 18 years (or up to 19 years if still in high school) (See instructions on reverse.)
a. Total number of children
b. Number of children ages 0-11
c. Number of children ages 12-17 __
-L~ _
multiplied by amount from table ~
multiplied by amount from table
'8 = $ d.. 8
= $ _
Total (add 8b and 8c):
9.
Weekly health Name & amount for children per week
insurance cost per child rI Q M tll.-l1. .
_ Do $
$--------
Total: 9. 3S
10. Weekly child care expenses
Name & amount per child per week $ d, bS,) J
$------- Total: 10.
II. Extraordinary medical expenses
Name & amount per child per week _ $ o ()
$--------
Total: II. ~~~~
*If parents provide substantially equal care, continue calculations on supplemental worksheet.
12. TOTAL WEEKLY SUPPORT OBLIGATION (Add lines 8, 9,10 and I I.)
13.WEEKLY PARENTAL SUPPORT OBLIGATION:
a. b. Non-Primary Care
fum~C~spends directly
Provider $ U IJ 1
"a-") l.~ _ Provider's support obligation $ ~ . "?:> tt.~
(Multiply line 7a by line 12) (Multiply line 7b by line 12)
Date:
FM -040, Rev. 09/05 Prepared HorReyt:er) (PlalRtl t:f) (D efelui8f1t) (Judge)
(A by: .. (rvhl~i:>ll'Ilt:)~jvjealator)
