Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2005 (2026)

Rebuttable presumption

✓ current as of May 2026

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

In a proceeding to establish or modify child support or to establish an award for past support, there is a rebuttable presumption that the parental support obligation derived from the support guidelines is the amount ordered to be paid, unless support is established under section 2006, subsection 5 or section 2007. The court or hearing officer shall review the adequacy of a child support amount agreed to by the parties with reference to the parental support obligation. [PL 2003, c. 415, §6 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1995, c. 694, §B2 (NEW). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 415, §6 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Moore, 2014 ME 59 (Me. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Moore, 2014 ME 59 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “In particular, section 2005 imposes a rebuttable presumption “that the parental support obligation derived from the support guidelines is the amount ordered to be paid, unless support is established under section 2006, subsection 5 or section 2007.”

Wong v. Hawk, 55 A.3d 425 (Me. 2012). “19-A M.R.S. § 2005 (2011). However, a court may deviate from the guidelines upon a finding that their application “would be inequitable or unjust” based on one or more of several statutory criteria.”

2023 Me 53, 2023 ME 53 (Me. 2023). · cites it 2× “Section 2007 lists the criteria for deviating from the guidelines, including when the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.”

Richard S. Sullivan v. Jane Doe, 2014 ME 109 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “4 There is a rebuttable presumption that the child support obligation derived from the child support guidelines is the amount to be ordered, absent special circumstances or a deviation from the guidelines, and the court must order the party not providing primary residential care…”

Michelle L. (George) Sullivan v. William A. George, 2018 ME 115 (Me. 2018). “§ 2007(1), (3) (2017). [¶ 15] Here, the presumptive child support amount, as calculated in the child support worksheets, was $626 for two children and $444 when William is obligated to pay for the benefit of only the youngest child.”

Foley v. Ziegler, 931 A.2d 498 (Me. 2007). “” 19-A M.R.S. § 2005. The support guidelines require the court to complete the following analysis in calculating child support obligations of parents.”

Holbrook v. Holbrook, 976 A.2d 990 (Me. 2009). “§ 2006(5)(B) (2008), is not possible when combined salaries rise above chart levels, the magistrate found the amended language to be ambiguous, and admitted extrinsic evidence to determine its meaning.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. Monty, 2000 ME 96 (Me. 2000). “See 19-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2005, 2006 (1998). A court may deviate from the child support guidelines pursuant to 19-A *1279 M.”

Nicholson v. Nicholson, 2000 ME 12 (Me. 2000). “See 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2005. The party seeking to have the court deviate from the guidelines has the burden to overcome the presumption.”

Webb v. Webb, 2005 ME 91 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “Title 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2005 provides that the child support amount as set out in the child support guidelines is the presumptive amount to be ordered.”

Lawrence v. Webber, 2006 ME 36 (Me. 2006). “Section 2006 requires the court to determine the combined gross income of the parties and apply that income to the child support table to determine the “basic support entitlement.” 19-A M.R.S. § 2006(1). When determining the basic support entitlement, the court should use the…”

Josefine Bahn v. Mark Small, 2019 ME 69 (Me. 2019). · cites it 3× “" See 19-A M.R.S. § 2005 (2018). The modified divorce judgment contains no terms regarding child support and does not purport to alter that portion of the original divorce judgment.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.