## Facts

- Suzanne Brewer and Barry Rodrigue are the parents of one child, Kenai, who was under three years old at the time of the custody judgment.
- The parties’ relationship ended after separation, and custody and parental-rights issues were resolved in a District Court judgment (Staples, J.).
- The District Court awarded the parties shared parental rights and responsibilities (joint legal custody) and shared physical custody.
- The court ordered Kenai’s primary physical residence to alternate between the parents’ homes in four-week blocks.
- Brewer lived in Maine. Rodrigue lived in Quebec City and discussed tentative future plans to move to Alaska.
- The court found the parents had intense interpersonal conflict and difficulty separating parenting decisions from their marital conflict.
- Because of that conflict, the court entered a detailed parenting plan governing contact and decision-making.
- Although neither party requested divided authority by category, the court allocated specific parental functions: Brewer received authority over Kenai’s religious upbringing, and Rodrigue received authority over Kenai’s education.
- Two mental-health professionals testified. Both generally supported joint custody in theory but raised concerns about the parties’ ability to sustain cooperative parenting over time.
- Dr. Gaffney recommended counseling as a condition of joint custody; otherwise, he recommended custody to Brewer.
- Dr. Hamrick supported the four-week alternating residence schedule at least until Kenai reached school age and recommended appointment of a parental mediator.
- Evidence showed Rodrigue was working toward two doctoral degrees and was employed as a research assistant; Brewer had a high-school diploma. Testimony supported the court’s finding that Rodrigue was better able to handle educational decisions.
- Brewer appealed, arguing that (1) the four-week alternating residence arrangement was not in Kenai’s best interests, (2) allocating educational decision-making to Rodrigue largely because of his higher formal education was improper, and (3) Kenai was too young to justify allocating decision-making authority by category.
- The Superior Court, acting as an intermediate appellate court, affirmed. Brewer then appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (Law Court), which reviewed the District Court’s decision directly.

## Issues

1. Did the District Court commit clear error or abuse its discretion by ordering shared parental rights and responsibilities with Kenai’s primary residence alternating every four weeks?
2. Did the District Court commit clear error or abuse its discretion by allocating educational decision-making to Rodrigue and religious-upbringing decision-making to Brewer, including when the parties did not request that allocation and the child was very young?

## Decision

- The Law Court affirmed the District Court judgment.
- Because the Superior Court acted in an intermediate appellate role, the Law Court reviewed the District Court decision directly.
- The Law Court held the four-week alternating residence schedule was supported by the record, including testimony that longer blocks of time could reduce stress associated with frequent transitions, and it was not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion under the best-interests standard.
- The Law Court held Maine’s parental-rights statute allowed a trial court to allocate parental functions by category when appropriate, and the District Court acted within its discretion in assigning education decisions to Rodrigue and religious-upbringing decisions to Brewer.
- The Law Court rejected the claim that the trial court improperly relied on Rodrigue’s education; the court could consider each parent’s abilities and qualifications as part of the overall best-interests inquiry.
- The Law Court emphasized the fact-driven nature of custody decisions and the deference owed to the trial court’s findings and assessment of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The controlling consideration in allocating parental rights and responsibilities is the child’s best interests. See 19 M.R.S.A. § 752(5) (Supp. 1994) (as cited by the court).
- A court may award shared parental rights and responsibilities while assigning specific decision-making categories (such as education or religion) to one parent if the child’s best interests support that structure.
- A detailed parenting plan may be used to manage parental conflict and reduce the likelihood that disputes between parents will affect the child.
- Custody-related factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities is reviewed for abuse of discretion; appellate review is highly deferential to the trial court.
- When the Superior Court serves as an intermediate appellate court reviewing a District Court judgment, the Law Court reviews the District Court decision directly.
- In deciding which parent should control a category of decisions, a trial court may weigh evidence of each parent’s ability to manage that category, including education and related experience, as part of the best-interests analysis.

## Conclusion

In Rodrigue v. Brewer, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a District Court judgment granting joint legal and physical custody of a toddler, ordering the child’s primary residence to alternate every four weeks between parents living in different jurisdictions, and dividing decision-making authority by assigning education to the father and religious upbringing to the mother; the court held the arrangement was authorized by statute, supported by the record, and within the trial court’s discretion under the child’s best-interests standard.


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