STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT

YORK, ss. LOCATION: BIDDEFORD

DOCKET NO.: BIDDC-FM-19-269

JUSTIN PAUL, )
)
Plaintiff ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
v. )
) TO AMEND JUDGMENT, NEW TRIAL
BRITTANY PAUL, )
) M.R. CIV. P. 52(b), 59(a), (e), 60(b)
Defendant )

NOW COMES the Plaintiff and moves this Honorable Court to amend the Order
Amending Divorce Judgment as prayed for below. In support hereof, the Plaintiff further states:
1. On May 8, 2023, this Court entered an Order Amending Divorce Judgment in the
above-captioned matter, following a one-day hearing on April 13, 2023.

2. Judgment was entered following only a one-day hearing in this matter, despite the
fact that the expectation of the Parties was for a day and half hearing for the Motion to Modify1
as per this Court’s Pretrial Order dated September 12, 2022. Also, this Court scheduled the case
for an additional ninety (90) minutes for Motion for Contempt and Expedited hearing, thus the
case was expected to be a two (2) day hearing.2

3. Rule 52(b) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:
The court may, upon motion of a party filed not later than 14 days after
entry of judgment, amend its findings or make additional findings and may
amend the judgment if appropriate. The motion may be made with a
motion for a new trial or a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant
to Rule 59. Any motion made pursuant to Rule 52(b) must include the
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law requested.

4. Rule 59(a) provides, in pertinent part:

On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the justice or
judge before whom the action has been tried may open the judgment if one
has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and
conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the
entry of a new judgment.

5. Rule 59(e) provides, in pertinent part:

1
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Modify on June 8, 2021 because the boys were sleeping on Defendant’s boyfriend’s
couch on school nights and failed to attend school on regular basis when in her care.
2
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Contempt and a Motion for an Expedited Hearing dated November 4, 2023 and
was scheduled for a 90-minute hearing on January 27, 203 to be heard on March 24, 2023.
1
 A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed not later than 14
days after entry of the judgment. A motion for reconsideration of the
judgment shall be treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment.

6. The Court ordered as follows with respect to the parties’ parental right and
responsibilities:
a. “Parties shall have shared parental rights and responsibilities with final decision
making allocated to Brittany; This includes where the children attend school; the
choice of who the primary medical and dental providers are for the children;
scheduling regular, non emergency medical and dental care for the children;
transporting the children to and from medical and dental appointments; and
childcare arrangements”.

b. Primary residence allocated to Brittany.

c. Parent child contact: “Justin shall have the children the first three (3) weekends
of every month, not counting school vacation weeks, summer vacations,
birthdays, and holidays as set forth herein and in the DJ. A weekend is defined as
Friday after school, or Friday at 1:00pm if there is no school, until
Sunday evening at 5:30pm. During the summer vacation from school, Justin shall
have the children from Friday at 5:30 pm to Monday at 5:30pm. Brittany may
bring the children to visit her family in West Virginia for up to three (3) weeks in
the summer months, including the Fourth of July, upon two (2) weeks' advance
notice to Justin”. “Justin shall have the children for three (3) full weeks, which
may or may not be consecutive, during the month of August. He shall provide
Brittany two weeks' advance notice of his planned weeks with the children during
August”.

d. “The non-custodial parent shall have the right of first refusal if the child or
children are to be in a non-parent’s care for 12 or more consecutive hours.”

e. Transportation: “When Brittany is not at work, she shall meet Justin at a mutually
agreed upon half-way point between her home and Justin's home to facilitate
transfers of the children. When and if Brittany is at work (including working
remotely), Justin shall be responsible for the full transport of the children, but, in
that circumstance, the parties shall evenly share the cost of
mileage by Brittany paying Justin monthly, her share of such mileage between her
home and Justin's home. The mileage rate shall be the federally set rate”.

f. Child support: “The Court has made certain findings regarding the parties'
respective incomes and parental support obligation set forth in the Child Support
Order and Child Support Worksheet which are attached hereto and incorporated
herein. Justin shall pay Brittany weekly child support in the amount of $222.00,
commencing 05/15/2023”.

2
 7. The Court provided the following finding of facts to support its Order as listed above in
paragraph 6 (a)- (f):

I. Shared Parent Rights and Responsibilities:

a. “Court finds that some of the shared parental rights and responsibilities are not
currently working due to the discord between the parties. Issues such as where the
children attend school, who makes medical and dental appointments for the
children, who watches the children when Brittany is at work, and the current
schedule (under which the non-custodial parent may call the children every night
at 7:00pm) all have, at times, created conflict between the parties which
negatively affects the children.”

The 7Pm phone calls between the parties were agreed on by the parties (Post Divorce
Judgment) And part of the 9-12-2022 Court order as part of the temporary change in schedule
when the children went from being with Justin majority of the time for 2 years to residing with
Brittany Mon-Friday. The court found that it was important for the children to have phone
contact with their father when not in his care during the school week. The phone calls
themselves were not a source of conflict, and there are no interactions or conflict between Justin
and Brittany when the phone calls do happen by either party. Both parties answer the phone and
hand it to the children. The issue with the calls as pointed it by Justin is that Brittany refused to
abide by the court order and allow the phone calls to occur, despite the fact that she was asked to
provide the court and Justin with contact information for the babysitters that Justin can contact to
talk to the boys when she was at work.
The court correctly recognized the need for the calls when it ordered such contact, as the
children not only had to change their routine, but also were left overnight 3 out of 5 days with
random babysitters when Brittany worked nights and had no ability to contact their father in the
evenings before bed.
Justin established by clear and convincing evidence that Brittany in fact violated this
Court’s order and intentionally worked on alienated Justin from the boys and she had the ability
to comply with the order. (Plaintiff’s exhibit 23,24,25,26).
Justin asks that this Court reinstates the children’s 7pm calls with the noncustodial parent.

b. “Ms. Quinlan, Ms. Sangillo, and Ms. Aracich (Brittany's mother) all described
observing volatility between the parties. Ms. Aracich specifically testified to her
witnessing Justin being volatile toward Brittany. There is no doubt in this Court’s
mind that Justin's past derogatory and demeaning communications with and
toward Brittany have significantly contributed to the parties' current trouble with
one another. 8 The Court finds this testimony credible.”

Ms. Aracich and Ms. Sangillo both testified that they have not had any interaction or
witnessed any interaction between Justin and Brittany Post the parties Divorce in 2019. Justin’s
legal counsel objected to the relevance of Ms. Sangillo's testimony in regard to her interactions
with Justin prior to the Parties divorce, the court sustained the objection. Ms Sangillo testified
that she has not had any interaction with Justin since the Parties divorced, which is now close to
four (4) years. Ms. Sangillo repeatedly referenced nonstop text messages from Justin to Brittany
threatening and harassing her since 9-12-22. When asked if any of these text messages she had
seen were after September 2022, her testimony was that there were hundreds. Yet, Justin and
3
Brittany have only communicated using OFW since it was ordered 9-12-22. No evidence of texts
messages in nature of what Ms. Sangillo described was ever presented as evidence by Brittany
not Ms. Sangillo. The GAL made no mention of messages in this nature in her report whether
they be texts, emails, or in OFW. There is no evidence on the record that would support Ms.
Sangillo's testimony.
Ms. Aracich is the defendant's mother, does not live in the area and have not observed the
parties’ interactions after divorce. Ms. Aracich’s testimony was focused on what she was told by
Brittany and shows clear bias. She testified to all the volatile, degrading messages that she
witnessed sent over OFW from Justin to Brittany, yet not a single exhibit was offered nor
admitted into evidence supporting such findings. The GAL had access and had the ability to
monitor the parties OFW communications and made no mention of any messages in the nature
that Ms. Aracich described. There is no evidence on the record supporting the testimony of Ms.
Aracich and Ms. sangillo.
Ms. Quinlan testimony was that she has not seen the parties interact in years. It is correct
that Justin and Brittany did have a volatile relationship when they were married, that's why they
are no longer married. The interactions between the parties as testified to by Brittany’s witnesses
has no relevance to the decision before the court. There is no evidence on the record of Justin
being hostile or calling Brittany inappropriate names. Additionally Ms. Quinlan did not testify
that she witnessed Justin yelling at the children, but that she witnesses parties yelling (which was
years ago) and there were no statements in the GAL report or evidence that would support such
findings. Ms. Quinlan also reported that “the Mother can be a bit of an “airhead” …..does need
some support with regard to parenting,” yet no note was taken by the court.

c. “In response to these perceived grievances, Justin became repeatedly hostile

toward Brittany: he called her inappropriate names, he incessantly communicated
with her via email and/or texts, and he repeatedly threatened her with what he
thought a court would do. He also became upset last summer when Brittany failed
to timely communicate with him as to where the children would attend school
daycare and preschool in response to this issue Justin enrolled the children in
school in Massachusetts without Brittany consent.” (Plaintiffs exhibit 28)

d. “At times Brittany has failed to timely communicate with Justin on issues
pertaining to parental rights and responsibility, due to in large part Justin recurring
criticisms and threats. Brittany is reluctant to communicate with Justin because
communication often devolves into confrontation.

Justin testified how Brittany on many occasions failed to communicate regarding

children. This Courts finding that Brittany “at times” has failed to “timely” communicate is not
supported by the record or evidence presented. On the opposite, the evidence shows that she
consistently failed to communicate regarding children’s issues, requiring Justin to ask the same
question numerous times, which includes such simple tasks as times for pick up and drop offs,
Justin waiting in the ER with the child and not being provided health insurance to give to the
hospital staff even though she was ordered to produce it in multiple orders exactly for that
reason.
Since the parties began using OFW Brittany has sent Justin 751 messages and still
managed to avoid topics and issues presented to this Court in Justin’s Motion for Contempt.
Brittany had the ability to present messages to the court as evidence to support her allegations,
4
she did not, the GAL and the court had the ability to review these messages and look at the
content of the parties’ conversations in their entirety, but neither did. Instead they relied on false
allegations and claims of witnesses who testified about all these messages that nobody bothered
to present to the court. The GAL references messages and videos she viewed that led her to the
conclusions contained within her report, but not one message or recording has been seen by
Justin or presented to this Court, and Brittany did not submit ONE message or recording to the
court as evidence to back up any of the claims made about Justin, not ONE!
That does not support the court's findings that Brittany was Reluctant to communicate
with Justin. Brittany refused to communicate with Justin on matters that pertained to the
children, such as School, Insurance and Doctors. Brittany’s refusal to participate in conversations
about the children caused constant uncertainty for the children and made it impossible to have
any sort of routine or consistency for the children. For example, Cameron did not know where
he was going to be attending school until the morning of the first day of 4th grade. Brittany’s
refusal to communicate and make unilateral decisions and withhold information from Justin
leaves the children in a constant state of unknown and anxiety which could be alleviated if
Brittany choose to participate in discussions on matters that affect the boys. Yet, this Court
incorrectly finds that Brittany is justified for not co-parenting nor communicating as every parent
should. This Court overlooked the fact that Brittany’s unwillingness to communicate regarding
the children is the source of great anxiety for the children and one of the reasons Justin brought
this Motion.

e. “Including Justin controlling behavior and persistent communication and the

demands of Brittany bordering harassment. Which at times causes him to lose
sight of what's best for the children.” (Summary from GAL report dated
4-12-2023)

As mentioned above since the parties began using OFW Brittany has sent Justin 751
messages and still chose to avoid topics and issues presented to this Court in Justin’s Motion for
Contempt. Neither Brittany nor GAL presented evidence of Justin trying to communicate about
issues not involving the children. This Court incorrectly interpreted Justin’s attempts to
communicated and provide consistency and predictability to the boys as “controlling behavior”
and “demanding” behavior. Yet, the court did not refer to evidence that shows that Justin
inappropriately tried to discuss issues not related to the children. How does the Court propose
Justin finds out for example, what time they are meeting to exchange the boys if Brittany does
not respond. No doubt, one would message again and ask the same question. The Court
incorrectly sees Brittany avoidance in communication that directly affect the boys justified but
does not apply the best interest of the child factor to see the tremendous negative impact it has
had on the boys. Justin testified the amount of times he sat in the parking lot with 2 boys in
the car for over 1.5 hrs being told that she is on the way to end up being told by Brittany
that she was not coming to get the boys. This Court did state that it found Justin credible but
yet made no mentions in its decision and failed to consider these instances of “emotional abuse”
by Brittany when she made the children wait for her in the car and then Justin had to tell them
that mom was not coming to get them. And examples were numerous, yet this Court failed to
note that it is not in the children’s best interest to be put through such emotional rollercoaster by
their mother.

5
 f. “Another example of turmoil between the parties is Brittany arbitrary (yet brief
and ultimately redacted). To relocate with the children to West Virginia to live
near her family, this relocation did not occur but is yet another example of the
lack of trust between the parties regarding co-parenting”.

Brittany informed Justin that she was going to be relocating to WV with the children in
the middle of a custody hearing, provided a date she was moving, an address she would be living
at and told the children they would be finishing the school year in WV. (Plaintiff exhibit 30)
That is a decision that Brittany made and talked to the children about prior to discussing it with
Justin. Brittany’s decision has no bearing on trust between Brittany and Jusitn or their ability to
co-parent. It was not until Justin brought a motion for an expedited hearing that Brittany
engaged her friends to harass Justin to convince him to let the kids go to WV. It is yet another
example of Brittany unilateral decision-making excluding Justin from decisions pertaining to the
children, that had a tremendous emotional effect on the boys and Justin.
Justin filed a Motion for an Expedited Hearing in response to her actions, as the children
refused to stay with Brittany worried that she will get up and move them as she has done in the
past and as she just did yet again by moving to Gorham (children learned they are moving when
she showed up in a Uhaul to pick them up from school). Again, the court incorrectly interpreted
such actions as “lack of trust” and not as yet another irresponsible move by Brittany.

g. Brittany did not timely inform Justin that she was seeking an indistinct waiver for
Cameron to attend Congin elementary school for the upcoming 2022/23 school
year. And she did not timely respond to Justin's repeated emails/txts about the
upcoming school year for Cameron.

h. “Brittany did not timely or effectively communicate to Justin about her plan to
seek an in-district waiver, thus, Justin without Brittany forgoing knowledge of
consent, enrolled the children in Massachusetts for school”.

Justin made numerous attempts to communicate with Brittany regarding the upcoming
school year and where to register the children for school because neither party resided in
Westbrook. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 28 – email dated May 16, 2022, July 26, 2022, August 1, 2022
with no response). The communication is cordial, with no derogatory language yet this Court
finds Justin as being “demanding” in his communication, when Brittany ignored and refused to
address the schooling issue causing Cam anxiety and stress. Evidence clearly shows Justin’s
attempts to co-parent with Brittany and work together to make decisions to no success.
The court incorrectly found that Justin registered the children in school in Massachusetts
because Brittany did not timely communicate where the children would attend school. Brittany
did not communicate at all regarding school and without ANY discussion went ahead and
obtained out of district waiver for Cameron to attend school in Westbrook as a non-residence on
august 1st, 2022. (Plaintiffs exhibit 29) Brittany did not inform Justin of this until August 26,
2022, and still did not provide any document that in fact Cam was registered for school. Thus,
it's not possible for Justin to have registered the children in school in Massachusetts in response
to Brittany not timely communicating where the children would attend school. Justin was not
informed that Brittany had gotten a waiver and Cameron was registered in and would be
attending school in Westbrook until August 31st, 2022, the day before school started (Plaintiffs
exhibit 28). Brittany withheld the fact she applied for and was granted a waiver for Cameron to
6
go to Westbrook for almost a month. Brittany Excluded Justin from this process and purposely
withheld the fact that she had been granted a waiver, leaving thinking that Cameron was not
registered to attend school at the start of the school year. After not hearing from Brittany he was
able to register the children in school in Massachusetts, informed Brittany and also reached out
to her attorney as to the plan for school. Justin was transparent and did state that the MA school
was a buck up as Brittany did not engage to discuss a plan and the boys needed to go somewhere
and school was starting in a couple of weeks.. (Plaintiffs exhibit 29 (D)
Justin’s actions were a responsible thing to do when the other parent failed to discuss the
children’s needs. This Court failed to notice the amount of anxiety and chaos Brittany’s lack of
care created in children’s lives and the negative impact it had on the children and Justin.
Court failed to note how Brittany’s repeated unilateral decision-making on matters
pertaining to the children, refusal to engage in any communication on matters pertaining to the
children create chaos, uncertainty and anxiety in everyone's lives and demonstrates her
unwillingness to co-parent.

II. Primary Residence Allocated to Brittany.

i. “Brittany initially feared providing Justin her Portland address because she
reasonably interpreted a comment from him to mean that he was stalking her at
her place of employment.”

There is no evidence on the record that supports the court's findings that Brittany
rightfully interpreted a comment made by Justin that he was stalking her place of employment
and that's why she did not provide Justin with notice of relocation or address upon her move to
Portland. Brittany testified that Justin never threatened to come to her residence, she also
testified that Justin had never been to any of the places she has resided since she moved out of
the marital home.

j. “Brittany currently resides in Gorham in a two-family home owned by her

boyfriend. Her boyfriend lives in one of the units and Brittany lives in the other
with her children.

k. “That they have a good routine in the Gorham home, that Cameron is doing
better in school and that the boys appear to be thriving while living in Gorham
with their mother.”

Brittany moved to Gorham on or about the 1st of April 2023, and notified Justin April
7th. (See Attached Plaintiffs new exhibit 34, notification was received after the Plaintiffs
submitted his evidence to the court). Newly discovered evidence since the hearing on 4-13-23, is
that Brittany misrepresented facts during her testimony, and her boyfriend did not live in the
other unit. Brittany picked the boys up at school and daycare in a uhaul on Monday April 3rd and
informed them they were moving into her boyfriend Patrick's house, whom the boys had met
twice prior. The Children have stated that her boyfriend lived in the same house as them contrary
to Brittany’s testimony that he lived in the other unit. The children have expressed to Justin that
they are not comfortable living there, their behavior has changed dramatically since the move to
Gorham. They are defiant and refuse to go with mom at custody exchanges because they do not
7
know Patrick and don’t feel comfortable around him. Justin has serious concerns about the
comments the children have made and the recent behavior changes and not wanting to go with
Brittany at custody exchanges.
Brittany moved to Gorham 10 days before the final hearing, the GAL did not conduct a
home visit or have fact to face interview with the adults who regularly reside there. GAL report
dated 4-12-203) The GAL relied on information provided by Brittany that the boys had a routine
and were thriving in a new home they had lived in for 10 days. The court failed to weigh the fact
Justin moved to Massachusetts long before any custody modification proceeding was
contemplated. At the time of trial, he was firmly rooted in the community, living with his
fiancée, the children had family and friends in Salisbury, have resided there with Justin since
September or November 2020 and Due to Justin’s Disability he was not working and it afforded
him more free time with the children, no need for the children to go to daycare. Taken in its
totality, the father's decision to move to and remain in Massachusetts provided a constant stable
living environment for the children. The Court’s finding that Brittany’s living arrangement
provides stability is flawed as Brittany has moved numerous times since divorce and did not
provide the stability that court have indicated.

l. “The custody schedule has changed many times since the divorce judgment
because of among other reasons, Brittany's work schedule and Justin's concern
that the children were being cared for by babysitters while in Brittany custody.”
(Plaintiff’s exhibit 9,17)

m. In 2021 the parties agreed upon at Justin request and what he termed his right
to enact the “first right of refusal clause in the DJ” (see plaintiff's exhibit 9) the
children would reside with him Wednesday – Sunday. (Plaintiff’s exhibit 9)

The Parent Contact schedule has changed Twice since the DJ (Plaintiffs exhibit 9, 17) due
to Brittany’s request, not Justin’s.
The court misunderstood the testimony and evidence presented when it found that the
change of schedule was due to “Justin’s request and what he termed his right to “enact the first
right of refusal clause.” In June 2021 the Parties changed the contact schedule per Brittany’s
request. Brittany reached out to Justin asking if Justin would change the contact schedule to
accommodate her work schedule. Justin agreed to accommodate. (Plaintiff's exhibit 9, is a text
message from Brittany to Justin) They parties maintained this contact schedule of Justin
Having the children from Wednesday after school - Sunday from June 2021 - 9-12-2022 when
a temp order was needed due to Brittany’s unilateral decision about the 2023 school year.
Brittany was supposed to have the children one weekend a month but per the party’s
agreement but neglected to take advantage of that weekend majority of months. For the
duration of almost 2 years the children resided primarily with Justin, there were never any
allegations, concerns or reports on anything negative about Justin's parenting, temper, anger or
treatment of the children. These allegations did not start until August of 2022 when the GAL
came onboard.

n. “Ms. Quinlan in witnessed Justin yell at the children. Cash has at times been
angry and lashed out when returning from his father’s house”. (Summery from
GAL report dated 4-12-2023).
8
 o. “Cameron had significant tardy arrivals and absents from school in 2020-2021
and some in 2021-2022 motley due to covid, remote learning and Brittany
works schedule.” (Plaintiff’s exhibit 27)

The parties had 50/50 custody during this timeframe and Court has evidence of the
children’s time with each parent. Justin was able to meet all the children’s educational needs
despite remote learning and covid while caring for the children more than half of the time, living
over 1 hour away and still making to school on time. Brittany failed to do so living in Portland,
did not help the children even log into zoom classes and Cameron is still struggling in school
because of significant absences for two years during Brittany’s parenting time as evidence
present demonstrate.

p. “The fact that Brittany is calmer with the children than Justin and can
de-escalate them when they become dysregulated, the parties' current inability
to use methods for assisting parental cooperation and resolving disputes.”
(Summary from GAL report dated 4-12-2013 contradicts observations from
report dated 9-11-2022)

The court overlooks the fact that the GAL report offers contradicting observations then
the GAL report dated 9-11-2022. GAL report dated 9-11-2022 makes the following
observations:
i. Meet with the father, Fathers Fiancé and children in fathers’ home on 8-2-22.
ii. This is the only contact Justin had with the GAL for the course of her
investigation. And the only time that she observed Justin with the Children.
iii. Deborah did not contact Justin or communicate through or to Justin’s attorney
for the duration of her investigation and refused to include Justin in her
investigation or address any concerns raised by Justin through his attorney.
Deborah ignored requests from Justin’s attorney to Speak with Justin so he can
heard, meet with the children again, (Exhibit ) 31).
iv. The observations that Deborah made on her meeting with Justin and The boys at
Justin's home where included in her report dated 9-11-2022 (Plaintiff's exhibit
3) are as follows:: “When I visited with Cash at his father’s home, he was happy
to show me his bedroom and to have me help him put some stickers on his bed.
He seems to be happy and comfortable in his father’s home.”
v. Deb met Cameron when she visited my home but made no note of her
interaction with him in her report.
vi. GAL had no interactions or observations with Justin or the children after her
initial meeting and report, but made multiple references in her final report that
her recommendations and conclusions were “based on her own observations of
Justin.”. It's not possible for Deborah to base her bias opinion based on
observation that did not occur. The observations contained in the 4-12-23 report
completely contradicts her 9-11-22 report, this was not because of new
observations she made, because there were none. It was based on hearsay
information provided by Brittany, and her deliberately excluding Justin and his
attorney from her investigation and refusing to review any evidence that did not
support her preconceived bias.
9
 vii. Deborah met the mother and observed the children in her home on 9-9-2022.
viii. When I visited Cash at his mother’s home “Both were not thrilled to come
inside. Cash was quite dysregulated initially and tried to get out the door several
times.”
ix. “When I visited Cameron at the mother’s home on Friday, he seemed very
dysregulated.”
x. “He was quite defiant of his mother.”
xi. Deborah did not observe or see the children since her initial report. But her
final report makes no mention of this and flips it around to describes Justin and
his interaction with the children which she has no observations of and no
evidence to support. GAL ignored requests from Justin’s attorney to meet with
the children again. The conclusions made in the Final GAL reports are not
supported by observations GAL made, and were not supported by facts or
evidence that had been made available to her throughout the course of her
investigation.
xii. In fact, this court and the GAL failed to note from the GAL report dated
04/12/2023 that Ms. Halbig, Cam’s teacher “did report that if she reached
out to the parents, that the Father would always respond, while the mother
responded more occasionally….. She did feel that he (Cam) had a more
positive attitude in school when he came from father’s home.” This
intentional oversight is yet another example of this court’s conclusions not
based on evidence but Brittany’s perceptions not based on real facts.
xiii. Without having any contact with Justin nor the boys for over 8 months the
GAL still recommended for Justin to have extended time during the
summer and on vacations, which this Court overlooked.

The GAL report was intentionally not provided until late afternoon a day before trial in violation
of the Court order and was objected to by Justin from being entered into evidence when Justin
was highly prejudiced with such ruling and had no ability to review or property prepare to
address it.

III. Parent Child Contact Schedule

q. “The distance and time issues involved with transporting the children every
Monday morning, especially on school days, is not in the children's best interest.”

r. The court finds that each parent believes their actions and desires are in the
children's best interests. however, they may fail to uphold the best interests of their
children if they cannot co-parent more effectively. (Summery of GAL report dated
4-12-2023)

s. “The distance and time issues involved with transporting the children from
Massachusetts to Maine every Monday morning, particularly on school days. The
Court concludes that such a weekly commute, again, particularly on school days, is
not in the children’s best interest.”

Justin agreed that the commute is not in children’s best interest and thus a reason for
his Motion to Modify. All the parties’ acknowledge and agree that the children need
10
 consistency, stability, predictability and routine. Brittany argued in her waiver to
Westbrook that she intends to move back to Westbrook so Cam can have the stability and
be able to continue with the services and help provided. YET, now the children are
unrooted to go to a whole new school, opposite of stability and consistency.
The Court failed to note that moving the children to a whole new school, weather
it is Gorham or in Mass makes no difference as the fact remains that the children will not
be able to continue with the school they are used to. If it was not for Justin the children
would have had the stability they did, as Brittany move numerous times, when Justin
have stayed in the same place since divorce.

IV. First right of Refusal

t. that she allowed a teenager to babysit the children, that the children, at times, slept
on a couch at Brittany's friend's home when Brittany worked nights.

u. that she allowed a teenager to babysit the children, that the children, at times, slept
on a couch at Brittany's friend's home when Brittany worked nights.

v. The sitter(s) concerned Justin as he repeatedly informed Brittany that he would

exercise his "first right of refusal" to be the custodial parent if the children were in a
sitter's care. (Plaintiff’s motion for expedited hearing)

The children were not occasionally with babysitters, they spent the night with babysitters
Sunday from 5pm -6am, Monday from 5pm- 6am, Tuesday from 5pm - 6am and every other
Wednesday from 5pm-6am. (Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited hearing) Contrary to the court's
findings Justin never just took the children enacting his “so called first right of refusal”. The
court misunderstood the purpose of the Contact calendar Justin kept. (Plaintiff's exhibit 22)
Brittany made the unilateral decision to enroll Cameron at Congin. Justin agreed to change the
Parental contact to Brittany having the boys Monday – Friday to make it easier on the boys with
travel until the court can make a decision. Brittany assured the court that she would be able to
meet all the boys needs by having them Mon-Friday.
Since the new agreed upon schedule took effect, Brittany have asked Justin to take the
children during her parental time as indicated in the calendar weekly(Plaintiff's exhibit 22), and
Justin always accommodated (the GAL could have examined all of Brittany’s requests and the
communication between the parties, but chose not to). Justin kept track of the days of contact to
show that despite the temp order issued on 9-12-2021 Brittany was not able to fulfill her parental
obligations and meet the boys needs and although the boys were only supposed to be with Justin
Friday -Monday Drop off, the reality of the situation was that they where with Justin 54% of the
time due to request by Brittany for Justin to take them for her. This caused the children to have to
drive to and from school 2 - 3 times a week and not just the one as anticipated by the temp order.
This Court misunderstood and failed to note how the constant change caused by Brittany
as indicated in the calendar created instability, chaos and unpredictability in the children's lives.
Every day that Justin had the children during Brittany’s parenting time, were because Brittany
requested if Justin could take them on that day as can be seem in OFW communication. Justin
acknowledges that there were time that Justin asked if he could have the children on some nights
Brittany work for first right of refusal, because he did not think it was in the boys best interest to
11
spend the night with a babysitter or sleep on Brittany’s friends couch on school nights, but Justin
request for the children were denied by Brittany (Plaintiff Exhibit 10 summarizes that times that
Justin asked and was denied).

V. Transportation

The Court created additional uncertainty by not clearly specifying where the parties are to
meet and conditions on Brittany’s presence work. Justin’s motion for contempt and evidence
presented pointed to exactly this point that Brittany refused to inform Justin of her work schedule
as ordered by the court on numerous occasions. This provision created a lot of uncertainty and is
not going to benefit the children. One of the major reasons that the parties’ have agreed to
Brittany picking up the boys from Justin’s location (see Exibit 18) is due to the fact that Justin
and the boys had to wait for Brittany for prolong periods of time and at times she would not even
show up, which had a substantial negative effect on the boys’ mental state and was not in the
their best interest.

VI. Child support:

w. She will receive her full salary from Abbott until 2023 and is confident, with a high
probability she will be rehired and agrees to an annual income of $73,000 should be
imputed to her for calculating child support worksheet. Defendants' support
affidavit was submitted as defendants exhibit 1.

Child support calculations: Brittany was ordered multiple times to provide child support
affidavit with proof of health insurance and paystubs and did not, in violation of numerous
ordered. Brittany yet again did not provide any evidence to support court’s decision to impute her
with an income of $73K when Brittany’s incomplete Child support affidavit submitted during
trial shows the income of $31K and included health insurance costs of $51.90 when the children
are on Mainecare, and includes child care costs that no document was provided to substantiate it.

The court is merely summarizing a materially flawed Biased GAL report (See attached
addendum A) That:
a. Failed to comply with the GAL Order of Appointment; And Court orders (Exhibit
A,D}
b. Failed to further the goals delineated by the Court.
c. Failed to comply with the GAL Statute, Rules and Standards
d. Failed to observe the father at his home or with his children in more than eight (8)
months.
e. Failed to conduct a home visit after Brittany (Mother) changed residence and observe
the children in their home.
f. Failed to conduct interviews with all adults who reside in the residence where the
children spend significant time.
g. Delivered a materially defective GAL Report dated September 11, 2022 and April 12,
2023 which made residency and schooling recommendations without:
i. Speaking with the Father, addressing concerns with fathers attorney after
numerous emails.
12
 ii. Reviewing documentation provided by the Father.
iii. Conducting an independent investigation to determine the best interest of the
children.
iv. Having factual information to support her position; witnessing or observing
any evidence or documentation to support the findings of her report.
v. Relying on hearsay evidence as the basis of her report.
vi. Reviewing communications between the parties in Our Family Wizard.
vii. Determining the wishes of the children.
viii. Failed to comply with best interest of the child standard and use it as a basis of
investigation, report and recommendations to the court.

The Court has no finding of facts to support the following and is requested to provide
additional/amended findings of facts as follows:

1. There is no evidence to support restricting Justin’s contact with the children during the
summer months, if the sole basis for their findings that the children should reside
primarily with Brittany is because of the travel and distance especially on school days.
When there is no school the parties ought to have substantially equal care as per divorce
judgment.

2. Court did not state the the weight it applied to all properly admitted evidence to the
court's findings and facts, not it did list what evidence was admitted and considered in its’
decision making.

3. Court relied on incorrect findings of fact and misrepresented testimony that Brittany
provides the most stable living situation for the boys, when she resided at a new place for
a total of 10 days, the GAL did not make a visit, nor interview the new adult in the home,
not asked the boys for their preference.

4. The Court did not acknowledge the fact that the children have primarily resided with
Justin for two (2) years and he was able to provide a stable and loving environment and
how this drastic change impacted their emotional well-being and currently they are at a
point that they refuse to get out of the car when it is time to go with Brittany.

5. The court misunderstood the issue with the noncustodial parent’s calls with the children
at 7pm and in effect gave Brittany a free pass to alienate Justin during the 5 out of 7 days
that the boys are ordered to be with her. Court overlooked the fact that now the children
go from spending over 50% of their time with Justin to 6/7 days a month. And without
phone contact there will be 24 days every month that children will not have a chance to
have contact with their father.

6. Court stated that it took judicial notice of all court orders, yet it failed to find that Brittany
violated all of the provided orders, and referred only to the violation of the Divorce
Judgment. As an example, the interim orders clearly indicated what parties were to do
and Justin’s motion for contempt summarizes and shows by clear and convincing
evidence how the orders were violated by Brittany. These orders were in place in
13
 response to the circumstances existing at that time, such Justin’s inability to take the
children to the doctor’s appointments because of Brittany’s refusal to provide a copy of
the insurance card.

J. There is good cause for the Court to alter or amend its judgment, pursuant to Rules 59(a) and
59(e) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.
a. The court failed to consider all properly admitted evidence and apply an
independent judgment in reaching its findings and conclusion.
b. The court misconstrued evidence before it, misapplied the law applicable to facts
disclosed by evidence. Referenced Incorrect or nonexistent exhibits used to
support the courts findings in the order.
c. Referenced Evidence not admitted into the courts record to support findings of
fact.
d. The court made no indication of how the evidence supports the award of Primary
residency and allocated decision-making authority to Brittany.
e. By admitting the GAL report over Justin’s objection that was intentionally
submitted the afternoon before trial in violation of the court order and GAL
appointment order and Maine rules for guardian ad litem was prejudicial to Justin
and prevented from having a fair trial. (Addendum A Attached to this motion)
f. Facilitated trial by ambush and allowed Brittany to produce witnesses without
having properly provided a witness list ahead of trial.
g. The Order is based on misunderstood and incorrect evidence as to indicate that
the decision must have been the result of error and prejudice.
h. That there is no evidence or reasonable inference from the evidence to justify the
the decision, or that it is contrary to law.

Motion for Contempt:

The evidence clearly establishes Brittany had the ability to comply with courts orders, but
knowingly and willingly violated them on a long term continually basis Justin Requests that the
court makes a ruling and provides findings of fact and conclusions of law on all of his allegations
contained in his motion for contempt. in order to find a party in contempt pursuant to M.R. Civ.
P. 66(d)(2)(D), a court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that: "(i) the alleged
contemnor has failed or refused to perform an act required or continues to do an act prohibited
by a court order, and (ii) it is within the alleged contemnor's power to perform the act required or
cease performance of the act prohibited." Evidence is clear and convincing when "the required
factual findings proved to be were highly probable." ShraderMiller v. Miller, 2004 ME 117, ¶ 20,
855 A.2d 1139, 1145 (quotation marks omitted).

Court Orders violated by Defendant

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt Subpoena dated 12/02/2022. Commanded Defendant

to bring to the hearing the following:

14
 1. Completed Child Support affidavit with proof of income & child care costs
2. Proof of health insurance for the boys from 11/01/2021-current (letter from insurer
showing dates of coverage)
3. Lease (rental agreement)
4. Letter for employer providing Defendant’ work schedule

B. September 12, 2022 Court Order.

1. Defendant shall file child support affidavit in 3 weeks.”

2. “Both parents shall have phone contact at 7pm when children not with them. or a
reasonable time thereafter.”
3. “If children miss school/day care the other parent shall be advised.
4. During the conference Magistrate also ordered Defendant to provide Plaintiff with
requested health insurance information, her address, work schedule, and name/s and
contact information of consistent babysitters that will be providing care to the
children when Defendant is at work, so Plaintiff can have the 7pm call through
them.
C. April 15, 2022 Court Order.
1. “Defendant will provide Plaintiff’s Counsel with address., (Defendants council
Provide Plaintiffs council with an address in Brunswick).
2. updated child support affidavit, employer, work schedule and travel itinerary for the
boys.”
D. February 23, 2022 “Updated child support affidavit and W-2 to be filed by
3/3/2022”
1. February 14, 2022 Mediation points of Agreement
2. . “Out of state travel with the children, with the exception of travel to Nicole Oliveira’s
home in Salisbury, MA. Parents shall share the official travel itinerary with the other
parent at least 2-weeks prior to travel. Failure to do so may result in the traveling parent
not being permitted to travel with the children.”
E. November 21, 2019 Divorce Judgment:
1. Part 7: “The non-custodial parent will have the first right of refusal for caring for
the parties’ minor children before being placed in someone else’s care." When
either party leaves with the children for 24 hours or longer, they must provide the
other parent with a physical location of where the children will be and ensure there
is a working telephone number so contact may occur between the non-custodial
parent and the children and provide travel information such as airline and flight
number if applicable.”
2. Part 10: “whoever is offered the most affordable plan for the or the parties two
minor children shall be responsible for obtaining health and dental insurance. The
parties agree to provide each other with documentation containing cost breakdown”.
3. Part 3: Shared Parent right and responsibilities language.

2. Summary of Defendant’s Violations

Both parties are to provide 2-week notice before any travel with the children. (Plaintiff’s
Exhibits 19,20,21).
15
 A. The court ordered this because Brittany repeatedly refused to provide Justin with accurate
travel information, which impacted Justin parenting time because Brittany would not
return the boys from travel as agreed to.
1. Violated orders dated February 14, 2022, April 15, 2022 and
November 21, 2019;
2. Christmas break 2021
3. April Vacation 2022
4. Xmas Break 2022-2023

B. If the children miss school/daycare other parent should be advised--09/12/2022

order.
1. The court ordered this because of Brittany repeatedly put her own
priorities above the children's educational needs, and would keep
them home from school for no reason and refuse to inform Justin.
ii. 01/03/2023 – Plaintiff not notified.

C. Parties are to have phone contact at 7pm when children not with them.”,

1. The parties agreed to this and the court ordered it because Brittany would use preventing
Justin from having contact with the children where in her care as a means to punish
Justin. Brittany has not been able to separate their prior relationship [from] that of his
relationship with the child" and that "this could potentially be extremely detrimental to
the child.
2. Plaintiff was not able to reach the babysitters nor Defendant.
3. At least 25 times. (Exhibit 26)

D. Parties ordered to provide cost breakdown of the cost of health insurance and insurance
information. This was ordered multiple times by the court because Brittany refused to provide
Justin with the children insurance information From July 2022 – Jan 2023. Brittany’s refusal to
follow court orders and provide Justin with the Children's insurance information:

1. Violated Divorce Judgment dated November 21, 2019 and 09/12/2022 order.
2. Defendant refused to provide it on 19 different occasions; (Exhibit 15)
3. Prevented Justin from making appointments for the children.
4. Camron was not able to see his therapist for the fist 8 weeks of School because the Health
insurance Spurwink had on file was no longer valid and Brittany refused to provide
updated insurance to Justin or the Counselor.
5. Caused the Children to Miss their yearly dental appointments.
6. Caused Justin to have to pay out of Pocket for an urgent care visit for Cameron
7. Brittany’s attorney provided a picture of an insurance card after the 9-12-2022 hearing to
Justin’s Attorney. Justin called to verify the insurance information and was informed that
the Insurance was no longer valid and was canceled by Britany in November of 2021.

E. Defendant must file and/or Child support affidavit. Violated the following:

1. 02/23/2022 order: Plaintiff did not provide it;

16
 2. 04/15/2022 order: Plaintiff did not provide it;
3. 9/12/2022 Court order: Plaintiff did not provide it
4. 12/02/2022 Subpoena (Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt)

F. Relocation of minor children without notice and did not provide new address

1. Violated Divorce Judgment dated 11/21/2019, court order dated 04/15/2022

2. September 2021 move from Westbrook to Topsham;
3. February 2022 move from Topsham to Brunswick;
4. Summer 2022 move from Brunswick to Portland;

G. First right of refusal violation – Divorce Judgment dated November 21, 2019

1. Defendant refused Plaintiff to care for the boys.

2. At least on 8 separate occasions (Exhibit 10)

H. Unilateral decision to enroll kids into Westbrook schools when neither party lived in
Westbrook

1. violation of Divorce Judgment dated November 21, 2019 (paragraph #3)

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court, re-open the evidence in this matter by and amended
the Judgment accordingly.

A. Brittany provided no evidence to refute the admitted evidence.

B. In spite of this Court’s specific orders to comply, the Defendant still refused to provide
the documents prior to trial.
C. It was within Brittany’s power and she was able to comply with this Court’s orders.
D. Justin was able to prove by clear and convincing evidence the above-listed violations of
Court’s orders by Brittany.
E. Brittany Repeatedly disregards the courts, and consistently puts her needs about the needs
of the best interest of the children.
F. Brittany's refusal to follow orders and agreements prevents the parties from effectively
co-parenting. The court should hold Brittany to the same standards as Justin and find her
in contempt for all violations of court orders, and should not reward her contempt by
allocating primary residency and allocating her final decision-making authority

Because the Defendant failed to comply with this Court’s pre-trial order and failed to
provide the required CS affidavit with proof of income, health insurance premium and childcare
expenses 7 days before the hearing and the GAL failed to provide her report 14 days before the
hearing (it was provided 14 hrs before the hearing), the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this
Court amends its findings and/or re-open the evidence in this matter.

In the alternative, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issues
further findings of facts based on all properly admitted evidence and conclusions of law as
follows:
17
 In the alternative, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issues
further findings of facts based on all properly admitted evidence and conclusions of law
as follows:
a. Re-instate children’s 7 pm phone calls with the noncustodial parent.

b. Allocate primary residence to Justin.

c. Order that the children will attend school in Salisbury and authorize Justin to
Begin the registration process.

d. Allocate final decision making authority to Justin.

Justin request this Court that it makes additional finds of facts and conclusion of law and
amends its Judgment as follows:

1. The parent-child contact changed twice, in June 2021 and 09/12/2022 both by agreement
of the parties.
2. The June 2021 schedule change was due to the request by Brittany due to her work
schedule which Justin agreed to.
3. Brittany’s frequent moves did not provide a stable living situation for the children.
4. 7pm Calls between the non custodial parent and children should resume and are in the best
interest of the children.
5. Ms. Arachich and Ms. Sagillo Testimony has no relevance to the matters of child contact
and custody before the court.
6. Ms. Quilan did not Testify that she witnessed Justin Yelling at the children.
7. Brittany is not reluctant to communicate with Justin in fear it will lead to confrontation
and this is shown by the 751 messages she sent justin since September on OFW.
8. Brittany is unable to act in the best interests of the child as demonstrated by her decisions
to Unilaterally obtain a waiver for Cameron to attend westbrook stating that it was in the
boys best interest, then 6 months later unilaterally determine that its in the children's best
interest to move them to WV, 12 hours away from the father and one month after that
decide that it is in their best interest to relocate them to Gorham. This arbitrary decision
making causes constant uncertainty and chaos in the boys' lives and prohibits them from
having much needed structure, routine and predictability that everyone has agreed they
need.
9. Brittany moved to Gorham 10 days prior to the hearing on 4/13/2022, which provides no
time to determine the consistency of a routine and make a finding that the boys are
thriving since the move. To the contrary, being picked up in a U-haul after school indicates
zero routine or concern for their feelings and emotions while moving them in with a man
that they only saw a couple of times.
10. Justin Has provided a stable home for the children for three years, the children have
family and friends in Salisbury, and it is their preference to primarily reside with the father
and attend school in Salisbury.
11. The court did not properly determine the child support obligation.

18
 Justin asks this Court to open the judgment to take additional testimony, order the
GAL to visit the new residence, talk to the children and find out their wishes, as well as
make amend finding of fact and conclusion of law and make new findings.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court to grant his Motion for New Trial, or,
in the alternative, to amend the Amended Divorce Judgment, as prayed for above.

DATED at Portland, Maine this 14th day of May, 2023.

Respectfully Submitted,

_________________________

NOTICE

Any memorandum and supporting affidavits or other documents in opposition to this

motion must be filed within 21 days of the filing of this motion, unless another time is set by the
court. Failure to file timely opposition to this motion will be deemed a waiver of all objections
to the motion, in which case the motion may be granted without further notice or hearing.

19
STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT
YORK, ss. LOCATION: BIDDEFORD
DOCKET NO.: BIDDC-FM-19-269

JUSTIN PAUL, )
)
Plaintiff ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
v. )
) AMEND JUDGMENT
BRITTANY PAUL, )
) M.R. CIV. P. 52(b), 59(a), (e)
Defendant )

After consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment, the Court hereby:

[ ] GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial.

[ ] AMENDS paragraph 1A of the Amended Judgment and remove allocated decision
making to Brittany.
[ ] AMENDS paragraph 1B of the Amended Judgment, award primary residence to Justin.
[ ] AMENDS paragraph 1C of the Amended Judgment as follows:
a. Starting 2023-2024 school children shall be with Plaintiff from Monday after school
pick up until Friday at school drop off.
b. The weekend is defined as Friday after school pick up to Monday school drop off
at 8am.
c. In the event of a Monday holiday, Defendant shall keep the children until Tuesday
8am drop off.
d. In the event of no school on Friday, children shall remail with the Plaintiff until
3:30pm, at which time Defendant is to pick up the children at Plaintiff’s home or
another agreed to location.

20
 e. Should either party need child care for the minor child for a period of more than 5
hours they shall promptly inform the other parent and give the first right of refusal for
child care purposes.
f. The noncustodial parent shall be allowed to have phone contact with the children
by phone, FaceTime, or other video conferencing platform between 7:00 pm and
7:15pm every evening. The custodial parent shall ensure that the children are
available. In the event the children will not be available at that time, the custodial
parent shall notify the other parent and make arrangements for a different time for the
evening call to occur.

[ ] AMENDS paragraph 1E of the Amended Judgment, by having the parties the agreed to
mediation agreement provisions dated 02/14/2022 and Defendant, mom shall pick up the
children at transfers at the campground in Harrison. The other pick up location shall be
Justin’s home in Salisbury, Mass.
[ ] AMENDS paragraph 1F of the Amended Judgment, by having Defendant provide a
newly submitted child support affidavit, with required proof of employment, income,
health insurance payments, and childcare expenses.
[ ] AMENDS paragraph 1G of the Amended Judgment, by alternating tax benefits every
year.
[ ] DENIES the Defendant’s Motion.

Dated: _____________________________
Judge, Maine District Court

21