Child Custody Opinions
2016
This page lists decisions made by the Supreme and Appeals court, which touch on the issue of custody. Although there is nothing in the laws that mandates nor encourages the courts to order sole physical custody, it is obvious that our courts are biased in favor of sole physical custody also known as primary custody
The current law states:
“In making an order or judgment relative to the custody of children, the rights of the parents shall, in the absence of misconduct, be held to be equal”
Unfortunately all too often the courts make clear their bias for sole physical custody
Opinions:
A poorly written opinion to be sure. One parent gets sole legal custody, the other parent appeals. This panel affirms the lower court decision, but chooses to not explain why it is appropriate
One parent has sole custody by "agreement", but as the years go by the children move in with the other parent. Yet another case that shows how ridiculous the court's bias is.
One parent has sole custody so of course there are problems. The lawyers involved must be loving it.
One parent has sole custody by "agreement", so now they argue over child support. While it is possible that one parent did not wish to be a parent of four children, it is highly unlikely. This case plays to the bias of the court, and the opinion does not give enough information to suggest otherwise
Yet another SIJ case with a "juvenile" over the age of 18, custody is taken away from the parents.
October 4, 2016
KAREN PARTANEN vs. JULIE GALLAGHER Appellant Brief, Appellee Brief, Appellant Reply Brief, Amicus Brief, Amicus Brief, Amicus Brief, Amicus Brief, Amicus Brief Abber
Not a particularly well written opinion, some of the amicus briefs are better, which usually isn't the case. None the less the decision comes out where it should albeit in a clumsy manner.
While not specifically a custody case, it is mentioned that one parent had sole physical custody of the unemancipated child, no further discussion is provided. It sounds more like the panel taking a victory lap for once more encouraging sole custody without explaining why it is appropriate.
While this case does touch on custody, it is a rather unique case. The lower court judge erred the panel is remanding,
Brazenly sexist opinion, one would hope that they would write better.
The parties had a child together but the mother had one of her own(?), The father changed contact information from the mother to himself (the correct answer is that both parents should have been listed as contacts), the list goes on and on. The members of this panel should pack it in as well as the lower court judge. They have no problem behaving as if they don't have a clue.
It is unfortunate when a parent is unfit, it does happen. When it does happen the court needs to act in the children's best interest.
This case is of interest because it shows that the court does know of standards that may be use to decide when a parent should lose custody of their children.
June 16, 2016
ELLEN DUFF KAREORES vs. CHRISTOPHER KAREORES Appellant Brief, Appellee Brief DiGangi
Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, Hines, JJ.
Although not a custody case per-se, the language used in this decision is so over the top sexist, it makes one wonder what message the SJC was trying to make to the public.
As with any decision that is so poorly crafted it quickly contradicts itself. At one point one parent is not in the work force because they are caring for the children, at another point the same parent is not in the work force because of significant health issues.
One of the best decisions I have read with regard to custody and parenting plans. Heavy on identifiable facts, the panel remands a decision that gave one parent less time.
If only there were more decisions like this one.
Another Special Immigrant Juvenile case, the court again shows their hand making clear that they are more interested in playing politics than respecting the rights of our children and our families..
This involves an eighteen year old man seeking to bad mouth his father so he may take advantage of this program, which promotes domestic strife, by providing awards for coping to it. A better system could have been designed, but it wasn't.
Quite a remarkable decision. The panel clearly takes issue with the lower court judge in fact the name of the judge is not even recorded in the appeals court docket as is the practice. We do know that it is a male judge out of the Norfolk Court, which reduces it to one of two people.
The judge apparently did not think highly of one parent, and the GAL thought the opposite. Apparently the panel thought otherwise.
In many ways the panel engages in the very activities they accuse the lower court judge of.
While it makes for interesting reading, it is not well written and there is little of value in this decision.
The children get split up so each parent has one. If parents want to do that its there business, the courts should play no part in encouraging this non sense.
One parent appeals a judgement decree that allows both parents to be in the child's life, the panel affirms. In this case one parent loses physical custody, whether not this decision was appropriate is not made clear.
April 1, 2016
LILIANA MARIBEL RIVERA RECINOS vs. MARIA ISABEL RECINOS ESCOBAR Appellant Brief, Amicus Brief Gorman
A new Federal law plays right into the hands of the courts anti parent mentality. The Special Immigrant Juvenile act purports to help juveniles. The first it does is redefine a juvenile to include those from the ages of 18-21. It then allows these juveniles to ask the courts to have custody of them taken from their parents, which the courts are only to happy to do. The word farce comes quickly to mind.
Clearly showing their bias against shared parenting, this panel takes a ruling from a foreign court and then claims that it means sole custody.
In these case one parent moved back to the USA from half-way around the world, the other parenting, doing the right thing followed suit. One would be mistaken to thing that in Massachusetts any good deed will not be punished.
At no time does the court attempt to explain their behavior, and no law supports it.
The children get split up so each parent has one. If parents want to do that its there business, the courts should play no part in encouraging this non sense.
One parent asks for shared custody, and is denied it. The reasons for the denial are never made clear. The lower court treats that parent as if they have to prove that they are fit, there is no discussion to suggest that they are unfit.
In this opinion the often abused reference is included:
"The determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the discretion of the judge" Custody of Kali
It should be noted that this reference is to an early case, and Custody of Kali is not its source. The early case has a completely different set of facts.
Our courts are not charged with determining who is the better parent, nor is there any reason to believe they have this ability. It is simply the result of deep seated bias against shared custody. The only people that benefit from this bias are the lawyers that practice in Probate Court. Treating people unequally creates conflict and billable hours.
One parent moved out of state without seeking removal of the children. The travel distance between the two homes was approximately 70 miles, which made things difficult. It does not appear that the parent that moved is a particularly sympathetic party. None the less there is no explanation for one parent to lose physical custody of their children. Even though the parenting time of the one parent was reduced due to choices they made, there is no reason for the children to not be in their custody when they are with them.
The parents "agreed" that one parent would get sole custody, the court decided that the other parent should have custody. What a waste of time.
As is generally the case the court opposed shared custody in this never married matter