Maine

Statutory framework; factor structure: 19. Separately, § 1653(6-B) provides a rebuttable presumption concerning jeopardy and contact when the court finds specified child-related sexual-offense convictions or an adjudication of sexual abuse. The conditions and an age exception appear in the statute.

Authority

Me. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1653(3), (4), (6-B)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

19

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

yes, (3)(N)

Presumptions in the original survey

None identified in the original survey; § 1653(4) bars parental preference based on parent’s gender or child’s age or gender.

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

"Irreconcilable marital differences"

Authority

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, §§ 851, 902. Me. R. Civ. P. 113.

Grounds without a misconduct showing

"Irreconcilable marital differences"

Other grounds and proof conditions

adultery, impotence, extreme cruelty, utter desertion 3 years, gross and confirmed habits of intoxication, nonsupport, cruel and abusive treatment (7); plus a guardianship ground, § 902(1)(J)

Separation

none

Timing

60 days after service before final hearing under Me. R. Civ. P. 113. This is a court-rule requirement, now checked on the judiciary’s text.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, judicial separation, 19-A M.R.S. § 851

Compare divorce grounds nationally

General best-interest factors. Ordinary modification. 30 days; exceptions apply.

Authority

19-A M.R.S. 1653(14), 1657(2)

Court test

general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)

Burden classification

burden on the party seeking modification (no relocation-specific allocation)

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

any move (no distance threshold)

Effect of silence

No deemed-consent procedure specified in §§ 1653(14) or 1657(2)

What the court weighs

Decision rests on the child's best interest under 1653(3), with a balance between the relocating parent's right to travel and choose a residence and the other parent's right to continuing contact (Light v. D'Amato, 2014 ME 134, ¶ 20; Low v. Low, 2021 ME 30, ¶ 9, citing Light). Riemann v. Toland, 2022 ME 13, n.5: the relocating parent's reasons need not be 'compelling' and need not 'outweigh' the child's best interest. Motives are one factor among the 1653(3) factors. The court may condition primary residence on staying in Maine (Light) or award it 'whether in Maine or Ohio' (Riemann). No statutory presumption for either parent. The 1653 factor list does not mention relocation.

Who carries the burden

No statutory burden allocation for relocation. No shifting found. The modification movant must show a substantial change (supplied by 1657(2) for qualifying relocation and receipt of required notice), then best interest (Gooley recites the trial court’s finding that the relocating mother met her burden of substantial change).

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes, but through the court order: the order 'must require' notice of intended relocation of a child by a parent awarded shared or allocated parental rights. At least 30 days before the move the parent gives notice to the other parent. If the move must happen in under 30 days, notice as soon as possible. If notice endangers the mover or child, the mover notifies the court and the court gives the other parent appropriate notice safely. Method of service not specified.

Which moves trigger the rule

Notice: any intended relocation of the child by such a parent, no distance threshold. Modification triggers (1657(2)): where shared or allocated parental rights exist, relocation or intended relocation of a Maine-resident child to another state when the other parent lives in Maine, or relocation or intended relocation that will disrupt contact, presumed if more than 60 miles from either parent's residence. Receipt of the 1653(14) notice.

Objections and the effect of silence

No statutory objection deadline. Receipt of the notice is itself a substantial change (1657(2)(A-2)), so either parent moves to modify. Statute does not say silence authorizes the move.

The modification threshold

Yes, by statute: 1657(2)(A) interstate relocation of a Maine-resident child when the other parent resides in Maine and shared or allocated rights exist; (A-1) relocation that will disrupt contact when shared or allocated rights exist (60-mile presumption); and (A-2) receipt of required relocation notice each constitute a substantial change in circumstances.

Other qualifications

The notice duty is written into the court order rather than imposed on every parent, and qualifying relocation or intended relocation, and receipt of required notice, count by statute as a substantial change.

Burden summary

Ordinary modification

Notice summary

30 days; exceptions apply

Trigger summary

Any move

Compare parental relocation nationally