Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752 (2026)

Parenting of children; change of names; compulsory process; support and maintenance

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(REPEALED)

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1975, c. 293, §5 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 118, §4 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 481, §3 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 578, §§4,7 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 668, §5 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 677, §18 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 733, §12 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 132, §5 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 174, §2 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 195, §3 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 480, §A15 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 564, §2 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 813, §5 (RPR). PL 1983, c. 862, §50 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 53, §4 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 652, §§45,46 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 750, §5 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 57 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 179, §3 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 721 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 156, §7 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 337, §§8,9 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 834, §B11 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 75, §§5,6 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 164, §§5,6 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 189 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 453, §§9,10 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 472, §3 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 172, §§5,6 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 405, §§4-9 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 694, §B1 (RP). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF). PL 1997, c. 415, §2 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 60 cases, 1975–2015 · leading case: Rowland v. Kingman.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rowland v. Kingman (Me. 1993). · cites it 12× “721, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752(12), amended by P.L.1987, ch.”

Rodrigue v. Brewer (Me. 1995). · cites it 13× “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”

Melanson v. Belyea (Me. 1997). · cites it 8× “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (P.L.1989, ch. 156, § 7 (effective Sept.”

Villa v. Smith (Me. 1987). · cites it 6× “t Court abused its discretion in denying the father's request for appointment of an independent expert witness and in also refusing the father's request to change his visitation schedule to facilitate weekday consultation between the children and a child psychologist to be hired…”

Harmon v. Emerson (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 provides in part that: The court making an order of nullity or of divorce may make an order concerning the care, custody and support of the minor children of the parties.”

Jacobs v. Jacobs (Me. 1986). · cites it 3× “In other words, he contends that both constitutions mandate a preference for joint custody, or “shared parental rights and responsibilities” as it is called in 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1985-1986), and that a joint custody arrangement may constitutionally be rejected in favor of…”

Miller v. Miller (Me. 1996). · cites it 4× “See 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1995). This standard protects children who lack the ability because of youth, inexperience, and immaturity to protect themselves.”

Kennedy v. State (Me. 1999). · cites it 5× “2 In each case, the court appointed her to investigate the facts bearing on the dispute and to issue a written report to the court summarizing her investigation and recommending what resolution of the dispute would be in the “best interest of the child” pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. §…”

Osier v. Osier (Me. 1980). · cites it 2× “In carrying out that two-stage analysis, the trial court should make, on the basis of record evidence, specific findings of fact concerning its evaluation of all relevant considerations bearing upon its ultimate custody order.”

In Re Krystal S. (Me. 1991). · cites it 3× “1990), the parents are separating or divorcing, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1990), or parental rights are terminated or suspended, 18-A M.”

Knight v. Knight (Me. 1996). · cites it 3× “19 M.R.S.A. § 752(5) (Supp.1995). That standard requires the court to consider the following factors: A.”

Cloutier v. Lear (Me. 1997). · cites it 3× “al standard by determining that a change in circumstances had occurred; (2) the trial court erred by finding the change in circumstances was sufficiently substantial in its effect on the best interests of the children to justify a modification of the primary residence of the…”

Show all 60 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(10) — 1 case

Melanson v. Belyea (Me. 1997). “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (P.L.1989, ch. 156, § 7 (effective Sept.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(11) — 1 case

Levesque v. Levesque (Me. 1997).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(12) — 11 cases

Rowland v. Kingman (Me. 1993). “721, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752(12), amended by P.L.1987, ch.”

Melanson v. Belyea (Me. 1997). “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (P.L.1989, ch. 156, § 7 (effective Sept.”

Fraser v. Boyer (Me. 1998).

Rodrigue v. Brewer (Me. 1995). “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”

Philbrick v. Cummings (Me. 1987).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(2)(C) — 1 case

In re Kidder (Me. 1988).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(2)(D) — 1 case

Snyder ex rel. Snyder v. Talbot (Me. 1995).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(3) — 2 cases

Rodrigue v. Brewer (Me. 1995). “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”

Adams v. Adams (Me. 1986).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(4) — 3 cases

Carter v. Carter (W. Va. 1996).

Kinter v. Nichols (Me. 1999).

Beane v. Bisson (Me. 1989).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(5) — 20 cases

Villa v. Smith (Me. 1987). “t Court abused its discretion in denying the father's request for appointment of an independent expert witness and in also refusing the father's request to change his visitation schedule to facilitate weekday consultation between the children and a child psychologist to be hired…”

Rowland v. Kingman (Me. 1993). “721, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752(12), amended by P.L.1987, ch.”

Cloutier v. Lear (Me. 1997). “al standard by determining that a change in circumstances had occurred; (2) the trial court erred by finding the change in circumstances was sufficiently substantial in its effect on the best interests of the children to justify a modification of the primary residence of the…”

MacCormick v. MacCormick (Me. 1986).

Rodrigue v. Brewer (Me. 1995). “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(5)(A) — 1 case

Knight v. Knight (Me. 1996). “19 M.R.S.A. § 752(5) (Supp.1995). That standard requires the court to consider the following factors: A.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(5)(D) — 1 case

Rowland v. Kingman (Me. 1993). “721, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752(12), amended by P.L.1987, ch.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(5)(L) — 1 case

Knight v. Knight (Me. 1996). “19 M.R.S.A. § 752(5) (Supp.1995). That standard requires the court to consider the following factors: A.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(6) — 4 cases

Rodrigue v. Brewer (Me. 1995). “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”

In Re Krystal S. (Me. 1991). “1990), the parents are separating or divorcing, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1990), or parental rights are terminated or suspended, 18-A M.”

Findlen v. Findlen (Me. 1997).

In re Kidder (Me. 1988).

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(7) — 2 cases

Jacobs v. Jacobs (Me. 1986). “In other words, he contends that both constitutions mandate a preference for joint custody, or “shared parental rights and responsibilities” as it is called in 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1985-1986), and that a joint custody arrangement may constitutionally be rejected in favor of…”

Snyder v. Talbot (Me. 1991).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.