underlying prior orders- in this action, and that the court was required to accept those prior orders and the findings therein. [¶ 24] A party is foreclosed from relitigating factual issues that have already been decided “if the identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment, and ... the party estopped had a fair opportunity and incentive in an earlier proceeding to present the same factual issue or issues it wishes to litigate again in a subsequent proceeding.” Id. (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted). We have held that “[p]rinciples of res judicata must be applied with caution in domestic relations cases” because of changing developments that affect a child’s best interests. Id. If 41; cf. Preston v. Tracy, 2008 ME 34, ¶¶ 12, 15, 942 A.2d 718 (<HOLDING>). [¶25] Here, at the time of the final hearing
holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable holding that a finding that a party willfully misused the protection from abuse process was not binding on the court in a subsequent divorce action because when determining parental rights and responsibilities a court  must make an independent examination of the totality of the circumstances after hearing fresh evidence holding that in determining prejudice a court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences holding that in determining the voluntariness of a waiver of miranda rights a court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances