Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 19-A

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007

Deviation from child support guidelines

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Rebutting presumption.  If the court or hearing officer finds that a child support order based on the support guidelines would be inequitable or unjust due to one or more of the considerations listed under subsection 3, that finding is sufficient to rebut the presumption established in section 2005.  
[PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
2.  Proposed findings.  A party in a court action proposing deviation from the application of the support guidelines shall provide the court with written proposed findings showing that the application of the presumptive amount would be inequitable or unjust.  
[PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
3.  Criteria for deviating from support guidelines.  Criteria that may justify deviation from the support guidelines are as follows:  
A. The application of section 2006, subsection 5, paragraph D or D‑1 would be unjust, inequitable or not in the child's best interest;   [PL 2003, c. 415, §13 (RPR).]
B. The number of children for whom support is being determined is greater than 6;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
C. The interrelation of the total support obligation established under the support guidelines for child support, the division of property and an award of spousal support made in the same proceeding for which a parental support obligation is being determined;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
D. The financial resources of each child;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
E. The financial resources and needs of a party, including nonrecurring income not included in the definition of gross income;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
F. The standard of living each child would have enjoyed had the marital relationship continued;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
G. The physical and emotional conditions of each child;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
H. The educational needs of each child;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
I. Inflation with relation to the cost of living;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
J. Available income and financial contributions of the domestic associate or current spouse of each party;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
K. The existence of other persons who are actually financially dependent on either party, including, but not limited to, elderly, disabled or infirm relatives, or adult children pursuing post-secondary education. If the primary care provider is legally responsible for another minor child who resides in the household and if the computation of a theoretical support obligation on behalf of the primary care provider would result in a significantly greater parental support obligation on the part of the nonprimary care provider, that factor may be considered;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
L. The tax consequences if the obligor is awarded any tax benefits. In determining the allocation of tax exemptions for children, the court may consider which party will have the greatest benefit from receiving the allocation;   [PL 2001, c. 264, §8 (AMD).]
M.   [PL 2001, c. 264, §9 (RP).]
N. The fact that income at a reasonable rate of return may be imputed to nonincome-producing assets with an aggregate fair market value of $10,000 or more, other than an ordinary residence or other asset from which each child derives a substantial benefit;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
O. The existence of special circumstances regarding a child 12 years of age or older, for the child's best interest, requires that the primary residential care provider continue to provide for employment-related day care;   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
P. An obligor party's substantial financial obligation regarding the costs of transportation of each child for purposes of parent and child contact. To be considered substantial, the transportation costs must exceed 15% of the yearly support obligation; and   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
Q. A finding by the court or hearing officer that the application of the support guidelines would be unjust, inappropriate or not in the child's best interest.   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. B, §2 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
[PL 2003, c. 415, §13 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1995, c. 694, §B2 (NEW). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF). PL 2001, c. 264, §§8,9 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 415, §13 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Wong v. Hawk
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wong v. Hawk (2012) me · cites it 6× “The magistrate considered deviation from the guidelines pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 2007 (2011) based on the daughter’s receipt of the dependent benefit.”
Michelle L. (George) Sullivan v. William A. George (2018) me · cites it 3× “[¶ 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. The court determined sua sponte 7 that a downward deviation from the…”
Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Moore (2014) me · cites it 2× “, 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(3)(A) (setting out when the court may deviate from the child support guidelines, such as when the result would be “unjust, inequitable or not in the child’s best interest”).”
Coppola v. Coppola (2007) me · cites it 3× “” 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(1) (2006). [¶ 25] Heather’s claims are little more than speculation because she failed to seek further findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to M.”
Department of Human Services v. Bell (1998) me · cites it 3× “[¶ 10] Finally, Bell argues that even if he is not afforded the protection of an equitable defense, he is entitled to a total retroactive deviation from his child support obligation pursuant to 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 (1998). 6 Section 2007 permits a court to deviate from the…”
Bojarski v. Bojarski (2012) me · cites it 5× “age rather than on the number of service points Robert earned during the marriage; (3) finding incorrectly the amount of marital debt owed on a particular credit card; (4) making certain assumptions regarding Robert’s tax liability; (5) dividing incorrectly the marital debt; and…”
Dargie v. Dargie (2001) me · cites it 2× “See 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007(3)(E) (1998) (providing that "criteria that may justify deviation from the support guidelines [include] .”
Young v. Young (2009) me · cites it 4× “DISCUSSION [¶ 8] We review an award of child support for an abuse of discretion, and we review the trial court’s factual findings in calculating child support for clear error.”
Johnson v. Smith (1999) me · cites it 5× “19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 provides, in pertinent part: § 2007.”
Glew v. Glew (1999) me · cites it 3× “1, 1997), and recodified at 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 *680 (1998). 2 The Legislature concluded that deviation from the child support guidelines is necessary if a child support order based on the support guidelines “would be inequitable or unjust” due to one of the statutorily-defined…”
Department of Human Services v. Monty (2000) me · cites it 4× “…that the application of the support guidelines would be unjust, inappropriate or not in the child’s best interest. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007.”
Darcy L. Howard v. Patrick S. White (2024) me · cites it 4× “5 Notwithstanding our language quoted above, the question whether the value of employer-provided health care should be included in gross income is separate from the question whether to deviate, under 19-A M.R.S. § 2007 (2023), from a support order based on the guidelines.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(1) — 8 cases
Michelle L. (George) Sullivan v. William A. George (2018) me “[¶ 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. The court determined sua sponte 7 that a downward deviation from the…”
Coppola v. Coppola (2007) me “” 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(1) (2006). [¶ 25] Heather’s claims are little more than speculation because she failed to seek further findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to M.”
Glew v. Glew (1999) me “1, 1997), and recodified at 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 *680 (1998). 2 The Legislature concluded that deviation from the child support guidelines is necessary if a child support order based on the support guidelines “would be inequitable or unjust” due to one of the statutorily-defined…”
Bojarski v. Bojarski (2012) me “age rather than on the number of service points Robert earned during the marriage; (3) finding incorrectly the amount of marital debt owed on a particular credit card; (4) making certain assumptions regarding Robert’s tax liability; (5) dividing incorrectly the marital debt; and…”
Johnson v. Smith (1999) me “19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 provides, in pertinent part: § 2007.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(2) — 4 cases
Michelle L. (George) Sullivan v. William A. George (2018) me “[¶ 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. The court determined sua sponte 7 that a downward deviation from the…”
Johnson v. Smith (1999) me “19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 provides, in pertinent part: § 2007.”
Darcy L. Howard v. Patrick S. White (2024) me “5 Notwithstanding our language quoted above, the question whether the value of employer-provided health care should be included in gross income is separate from the question whether to deviate, under 19-A M.R.S. § 2007 (2023), from a support order based on the guidelines.”
Jessica A. (Nadeau) Potila v. Larry A. Nadeau (2014) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(2015) — 1 case
Carolyn H. Dumas v. Ian D. Milotte (2016) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3) — 7 cases
Wong v. Hawk (2012) me “The magistrate considered deviation from the guidelines pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 2007 (2011) based on the daughter’s receipt of the dependent benefit.”
Jarvis v. Jarvis (2003) me
Coppola v. Coppola (2007) me “” 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(1) (2006). [¶ 25] Heather’s claims are little more than speculation because she failed to seek further findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to M.”
Bojarski v. Bojarski (2012) me “age rather than on the number of service points Robert earned during the marriage; (3) finding incorrectly the amount of marital debt owed on a particular credit card; (4) making certain assumptions regarding Robert’s tax liability; (5) dividing incorrectly the marital debt; and…”
Twomey v. Twomey (2005) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(A) — 2 cases
Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Moore (2014) me “, 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(3)(A) (setting out when the court may deviate from the child support guidelines, such as when the result would be “unjust, inequitable or not in the child’s best interest”).”
Lawrence v. Webber (2006) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(C) — 2 cases
Young v. Young (2009) me “DISCUSSION [¶ 8] We review an award of child support for an abuse of discretion, and we review the trial court’s factual findings in calculating child support for clear error.”
Darcy L. Howard v. Patrick S. White (2024) me “5 Notwithstanding our language quoted above, the question whether the value of employer-provided health care should be included in gross income is separate from the question whether to deviate, under 19-A M.R.S. § 2007 (2023), from a support order based on the guidelines.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(D) — 2 cases
Wong v. Hawk (2012) me “The magistrate considered deviation from the guidelines pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 2007 (2011) based on the daughter’s receipt of the dependent benefit.”
Lund v. Lund (2007) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(E) — 3 cases
Dargie v. Dargie (2001) me “See 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007(3)(E) (1998) (providing that "criteria that may justify deviation from the support guidelines [include] .”
Department of Human Services v. Monty (2000) me “…that the application of the support guidelines would be unjust, inappropriate or not in the child’s best interest. 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007.”
Payne v. Payne (2008) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(H) — 1 case
Lee v. Maier (1999) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(J) — 1 case
Bartlett v. Anderson (2005) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(K) — 1 case
Alexis Harriman v. Dillon Lamothe (2026) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(L) — 4 cases
Coppola v. Coppola (2007) me “” 19-A M.R.S. § 2007(1) (2006). [¶ 25] Heather’s claims are little more than speculation because she failed to seek further findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to M.”
Ashley L. Whitmore v. Nicholas A. Whitmore (2023) me
Payne v. Payne (2008) me
Andrew H. Proctor v. Christina S. Childs (2023) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(N) — 1 case
Edward J. Harshman v. Sheila C. Harshman (2017) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(P) — 2 cases
Chamberlin v. Chamberlin (2001) me
Emily A. Emerson v. Jake W. Laffan (2021) me
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(Q) — 4 cases
Department of Human Services v. Bell (1998) me “[¶ 10] Finally, Bell argues that even if he is not afforded the protection of an equitable defense, he is entitled to a total retroactive deviation from his child support obligation pursuant to 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 (1998). 6 Section 2007 permits a court to deviate from the…”
Johnson v. Smith (1999) me “19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 provides, in pertinent part: § 2007.”
Pratt v. Sidney (2009) me
Cote v. Maine Dep't of Human Servs. (2002) mesuperct
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(c) — 1 case
Webb v. Webb (2005) me
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.