Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 19-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007 (2026)

Deviation from child support guidelines

✓ current as of May 2026
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, 55 A.3d 425 (Me. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wong v. Hawk, 55 A.3d 425 (Me. 2012). · 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 115 (Me. 2018). · 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 59 (Me. 2014). · 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, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007). · 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.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Bell, 1998 ME 123 (Me. 1998). · 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 56 (Me. 2012). · 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 127 (Me. 2001). · 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, 973 A.2d 765 (Me. 2009). · 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 168 (Me. 1999). · cites it 5× “19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 provides, in pertinent part: § 2007.”
Glew v. Glew, 1999 ME 114 (Me. 1999). · 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…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Monty, 2000 ME 96 (Me. 2000). · 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 9 (Me. 2024). · 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 115 (Me. 2018). “[¶ 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, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007). “” 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 114 (Me. 1999). “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 56 (Me. 2012). “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 168 (Me. 1999). “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 115 (Me. 2018). “[¶ 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 168 (Me. 1999). “19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 provides, in pertinent part: § 2007.”
Darcy L. Howard v. Patrick S. White, 2024 ME 9 (Me. 2024). “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 5 (Me. 2014).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(2015) — 1 case
Carolyn H. Dumas v. Ian D. Milotte, 2016 ME 3 (Me. 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3) — 7 cases
Wong v. Hawk, 55 A.3d 425 (Me. 2012). “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 53 (Me. 2003).
Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007). “” 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 56 (Me. 2012). “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, 888 A.2d 272 (Me. 2005).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(A) — 2 cases
Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Moore, 2014 ME 59 (Me. 2014). “, 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 36 (Me. 2006).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(C) — 2 cases
Young v. Young, 973 A.2d 765 (Me. 2009). “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 9 (Me. 2024). “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, 55 A.3d 425 (Me. 2012). “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 98 (Me. 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(E) — 3 cases
Dargie v. Dargie, 2001 ME 127 (Me. 2001). “See 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007(3)(E) (1998) (providing that "criteria that may justify deviation from the support guidelines [include] .”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Monty, 2000 ME 96 (Me. 2000). “…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 35 (Me. 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(H) — 1 case
Lee v. Maier, 1999 ME 62 (Me. 1999).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(J) — 1 case
Bartlett v. Anderson, 866 A.2d 829 (Me. 2005).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(K) — 1 case
Alexis Harriman v. Dillon Lamothe, 2026 ME 29 (Me. 2026).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(L) — 4 cases
Coppola v. Coppola, 938 A.2d 786 (Me. 2007). “” 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 3 (Me. 2023).
Payne v. Payne, 2008 ME 35 (Me. 2008).
Andrew H. Proctor v. Christina S. Childs, 2023 ME 6 (Me. 2023).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(N) — 1 case
Edward J. Harshman v. Sheila C. Harshman, 2017 ME 60 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(P) — 2 cases
Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 2001 ME 167 (Me. 2001).
Emily A. Emerson v. Jake W. Laffan, 2021 ME 53 (Me. 2021).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(Q) — 4 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Bell, 1998 ME 123 (Me. 1998). “[¶ 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 168 (Me. 1999). “19-A M.R.S.A. § 2007 provides, in pertinent part: § 2007.”
Pratt v. Sidney, 2009 ME 28 (Me. 2009).
Cote v. Maine Dep't of Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2007(3)(c) — 1 case
Webb v. Webb, 2005 ME 91 (Me. 2005).
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.