Austin M. Seeley v. Kiara Short

2025 ME 53

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: Ken-24-499
• Status: Published

Opinion

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2025 ME 53 Docket: Ken-24-499 Submitted On Briefs: May 21, 2025 Decided: June 24, 2025

Panel: MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, DOUGLAS, and LIPEZ, JJ.

AUSTIN M. SEELEY

v.

KIARA SHORT

HORTON, J.

[¶1] Austin M. Seeley, the father of a child with Kiara Short, appeals from

a judgment of the District Court (Augusta, Daniel Mitchell, J.) determining

parental rights and responsibilities as between Seeley and Short. Because of a

clerical error in the calculation of prospective child support, we vacate the

judgment in part and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected child

support order. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. 1

[¶2] On April 20, 2023, Seeley filed a complaint seeking a determination

of the parties’ parental rights and responsibilities. Through mediation in July

1 Although Seeley challenges other aspects of the judgment, we discern no other error or abuse of

discretion and decline to address the challenges further. 2

2023, the parties reached an interim agreement for the child to reside primarily

with Short, with Seeley having the child in his home every other weekend.

[¶3] After a trial held on February 2, 2024, the court entered a judgment

on October 16, 2024, finding that it was in the child’s best interest for Short to

continue to have primary residence and for Seeley to continue to have contact

with the child every other weekend, with specific provisions for vacations and

holidays. The court used a single child support worksheet to apply the child

support guidelines and determine both past and prospective child support

obligations. See 19-A M.R.S. § 2006 (2025). Through the worksheet, the court

calculated a total parental weekly support obligation of $209. Using the

parents’ adjusted gross incomes to determine the parents’ proportionate

obligations, the court determined that Short was responsible for directly

spending $22.66 per week in child support and that Seeley was obligated to pay

Short $183.34 per week. See id. § 2006(1)-(4).

[¶4] Using the $183.34 figure, the court ordered Seeley to pay Short

$6,600 for thirty-six weeks of past child support. In its prospective child

support order, establishing the amount to be paid beginning on

October 25, 2024, the court used the same worksheet but ordered Seeley to pay

Short $206 per week. This amount is inconsistent with both the parents’ total 3

$209 weekly support obligation and Seeley’s proportion of that obligation.

See id. § 2006(1), (3)-(4). Seeley timely appealed. See 19-A M.R.S. § 104 (2025);

M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).

[¶5] We review the court’s award of child support for an abuse of

discretion. McCarthy v. Guber, 2023 ME 53, ¶ 10, 300 A.3d 804. Part of that

analysis requires us to review the court’s application of law. See Sullivan v.

George, 2018 ME 115, ¶ 13, 191 A.3d 1168.

[¶6] Here, the court appropriately calculated the past support obligation

by determining the parents’ total weekly obligation and calculating Seeley’s

proportionate share of that obligation. See 19-A M.R.S. § 2006(1)-(4). However,

in its order for prospective child support, the court did not order Seeley to pay

only his share of the obligation but instead ordered him to pay an amount

nearly equal to the parents’ total weekly support obligation. See id. § 2006(1),

(3)-(4). We remand with instructions to the court to correct the error by

issuing an amended child support order effective retroactively to

October 25, 2024.2

2 Our mandate requires only that the court reduce to $183.34 per week Seeley’s child support obligation for the period beginning on October 25, 2024. If any overpayment has been made— meaning that Seeley has already paid the required $6,600 in past support and is current in paying ongoing support at the incorrect rate—the parties may agree to a method for Seeley to recoup the overpayment. Should any further order be necessary to enforce the terms of the child support order as modified, the court must use the $183.34-per-week figure in calculating the child support obligation from October 25, 2024, forward. 4

The entry is:

Child support order vacated as to Seeley’s prospective child support obligation. Remanded for the court to enter a corrected order requiring Seeley to pay child support of $183.34 per week prospectively and retroactively to October 25, 2024. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.

Austin M. Seeley, appellant pro se

Kiara Short, appellee pro se

Augusta District Court docket number FM-2023-120 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY