Rodriguez v. Brewer,
667 A.2d 605 (Me. 1995).


Facts: Suzanne Brewer (P) and Barry Rodrigue (D) separated shortly after their marriage and the conception of their child, who is now two and a half years old. The district court determined that shared parental rights were called for, but that the marital conflicts required the court to establish a detailed plan of parental contact with the child and the allocation of certain parental functions between them. The court ordered (i) shared primary physical residence, alternating every four weeks; (ii) parental rights and responsibilities over religious upbringing allocated to P; and (iii) parental rights and responsibilities over education to D. The superior court, acting as an intermediate appellate court, affirmed. P appeals.

Issue: Whether a clear abuse of error for a trial court to disregard expert testimony?

Rule: It is not a clear abuse of error for a trial court to disregard expert testimony.

Holding:No. Judgment affirmed.
The Superior Court, Waldo County, affirmed. Mother appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court, held that: (1) trial court's allocation of sole responsibility for son's education to father on basis of his relative educational qualifications was not an abuse of discretion, and (2) trial court's decision to provide for joint parental responsibility and alternating physical custody was not an abuse of discretion.


Analysis: Parental rights over the son's religious upbringing were allocated to the mother. The mother and father were married in 1989. They separated in February 1990, sometime after their child's conception. They permanently separated in May 1992.The trial court found that shared parental rights and responsibilities were called for but found that despite the willingness of the parties to share in parenting on an equal basis, their inability to separate themselves from their marital conflicts compelled the trial court to establish a detailed plan of parental contact and to allocate certain functions between the parents. The appellate court held the findings were neither clearly erroneous nor an abuse of discretion.