 |
hgoldstein.com |
 |
 |
||
Massachusetts Appellate Cases / Child Custody On this page we are compiling links to the full text of important Massachusetts Appellate Cases on Family Law and Divorce decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court. These cases are for educational purpose only and should not be used for any official or legal purpose. Please consult official reports. Below you will be able to search for Massachusetts Appeals Court Slip Opinions and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Slip Opinions relating to Child Custody.
Child Custody Cases in Massachusetts
A.H v. M.P. The facts of this case raises two questions of first impression: 1) may an adult who is not the biological or adoptive parent of a minor child assert custody and support rights as a “de facto” parent; and 2) whether and to what extent should the court “recognize estoppel principles as creating parental rights where the party claiming such rights is neither the biological nor adoptive parent of the child and does not meet the criteria of a “de facto” parent. The plaintiff filed a complaint in equity seeking parental rights of a child, whose biological mother is the plaintiff’s former same-sex partner and defendant. By agreement of the parties, the child was conceived by in vitro fertilization during the parties’ relationship, but the parties separated when the child was 18 months old. The plaintiff never adopted the child. In consideration of the best interests of the child, the probate judge found that the parties agreed that the defendant would be the primary caretaker of the child, the plaintiff did not adopt the child during the parties’ relationship, and that the plaintiff showed “and inability to place the child’s needs above her own.” The probate judge also found that while the plaintiff loved the child, and the child might derive benefits from having contact with the plaintiff, the plaintiff does not meet the criteria of a “de facto parent” and the plaintiff is estopped from asserting parental rights the child. The probate judge’s decision was affirmed. A.Z v. B.Z. The facts of this case involve the enforceability of a consent form between a married couple and an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic regarding the disposition of frozen embryos. During the marriage, the parties had difficulty conceiving for several years. Eventually, the parties were able to conceive, and had twin daughters in 1991. In 1995, before the parties separated and without informing the husband, the wife thawed one vial of preembryos, and had one preembryo implanted. A notice from the husband’s insurance agency informed the husband of the wife’s procedure, which caused the parties’ relationship to deteriorate. The wife obtained a restraining order against the husband, they separated and the husband filed for a divorce. The IVF clinic’s consent form required a signature from the parties every time eggs were removed from the wife and combined with the husband’s sperm. The consent form also contained a section that requires the parties to describe the disposition of the frozen preembryos. The first consent form signed by the husband and the wife stated that if the parties separated, they agreed to have the embryos returned to the wife for implant. Each consent form thereafter was blank when the husband signed it, and the wife completed form adding similar language regarding the disposition of the preembryos. The Husband received a permanent injunction that prevented the wife from using the preembryos, which the wife appealed. The appellate court held that the consent form should not enforced based on the circumstances of this case, and that the form itself did not represent the parties’ intention if there was a dispute regarding the disposition of the preembryos. Furthermore, the court held that it would not compel an individual to become a parent over his/her objection. The permanent injunction was affirmed. Ardizoni v. Raymond: 40 Mass.App.Ct. 734 (1996). The best interests of the child is the guiding principle when determining child custody awards. Bailey v. Bailey 27 Mass. App. Ct. 502(1989) The trial court has the power to decide which parent gets the child dependency exemptions for federal tax purposes. E.N. v. E.S. - The judge properly ruled that Massachusetts had jurisdiction to determine the custody issue as Massachusetts is the home state of the child. Fort v. Fort 12 Mass App. Ct. 411 (1981) – The fact that the husband was cohabiting with an unmarried woman was not, in and of itself, sufficient to deny custody to the husband. Judges should not make moral judgments but should look for evidence of the effect on the interests of the child. Freedman v. Freedman 49 Mass. App. Ct. 519 – Court ordered the child to spend one year with one parent and the next year with the other parent in rotation. In a shared legal custody arrangement. The Appelas court found this to be acceptable under the circumstances. Mason v. Coleman The parents were divorced in 198, and per their divorce agreement, they had joint physical custody of their children. The parties also agreed not to move twenty-five miles from Chelmsford, Massachusetts. After some time, both parties remarried and the father moved to Nashua, New Hampshire, which is seventeen miles from Chelmsford. The mother sought removal of the children from Chelmsford to Bristol, New Hampshire because of her new husband and other family ties. The father refused to consent to the removal, and the mother filed a complaint for modification. When parents have joint physical custody, removal "upon cause shown" under G.L. c. 208, section 30, means showing that removal is in the "best interests of the children." The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the mother's request for removal because removal was not in the "best interests of the children." Rosenthal v. Maney, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 257 (2001). A parent may remove a child out of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts if he/she has established a “good, sincere, reason” or a “real advantage” for moving. Shao v. Ma Complaint for divorce filed in the Worcester Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on June 10, 2005. The judgment of dismissal is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Probate Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. S.W. v. D.P. This appeal arises from a custody dispute involving a now six year old child who lived in Massachusetts for the first year of his life, but who has since resided in Ontario, Canada. The matters of custody, visitation, and support were initially determined by the Probate and Family Court in February, 2004, after litigation lasting more than two years. The judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed.
|
|
||
Home | Contact us | RF&G website | Disclaimer | Directions | Site map |
||
|
||
 |
Copyright 2008, hgoldstein.com - All rights reserved |
 |