Custody 2018

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

In a year that saw widespread public outrage against our government for separating children from their parents, its difficult to comprehend how the Massachusetts Courts insist on continuing this treatment of our families

Opinions:

October 10 2018

SAMUEL AMPOMAH vs. LOUISA FILSON Keamy

Hanlon, Sullivan, Desmond

A particularly poorly written decision. Although the parents were not married, that does not excuse the demeaning language used in this opinion. The judiciary regularly claims that parenting time, should not be referred to as "visitation", unfortunately this panel didn't get the message.

It comes as no surprise that this opinion supported sole physical custody. The reason for this decision was vague, the parents didn't get along. There was no discussion of how they didn't along and how it did or might affect the quality of life for the children in question. The difference could be nothing more than the differences explained in an old Gerschwin tune, what is clear in this decision is that this panel does not like shared custody.

September 10 2018

KEVIN HEINE vs. ROSANGELA HEINE Phelan

Agnes, Maldonado, McDonough

Actually a pretty good decision. The parties appeared to have worked out most of their issues on their own. The parties agreed to shared custody, which left the court with relatively little to do.

Custody is the issue in this case, the parent who lost custody argues that they should have gotten sole physical custody of the child for good reason. Although the court does not grant them sole custody, they do grant the other parent sole custody, because sole physical custody is the bias of the court.

Another type of case playing to the court's bias against shared custody.

At issue is the special immigrant juvenile law. In this case someone who is barely a juvenile, four months before their eighteenth birthday, for the purposes of this law they are considered a juvenile until they are twenty-one

The parent who is present in this country seeks sole physical custody of the child, which the court only too happily allows.

In this case the court decided to award:

"sole physical custody to the mother and reducing the father's parenting time with their minor child,"

after a period when the parties had shared custody, once again playing into the bias of the court. The change in parenting time, could be argued to have been appropriate since one parent decided to move a substantial distance, or it could just be the bias of the court. The decision provides little to clarify what was going on here, other than the bias of the court.

Although this opinion is not about custody per se, it does contain the following comment:

“their separation agreement, which granted the mother sole physical custody of the parties' only child”

Which most likely is untrue, and simply reflects the courts bias against shared custody. Although it most likely is true that there is a signed agreement that includes this statement, it was most likely made under duress or misinformation. In situations where both parents are seen as good parents and are actively involved in their child’s life there is no reason to agree to one parent having custody, it is simply the court’s bias.

April 2, 2018

IN THE MATTER OF CHILDREN, Bisenius

March 9, 2018

March 2, 2018

DANA YOUNG vs. NICOLE ST HILAIRE , Sahagian

Wolohojian, Agnes, Wendlandt

This opinion contains the following comment:

“the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement granting sole legal and physical custody of David to the defendant”

Which most likely is untrue, and simply reflects the courts bias against shared custody. Although it most likely is true that there is a signed agreement that includes this statement, it was most likely made under duress or misinformation. In situations where both parents are seen as good parents and are actively involved in their child’s life, as is the case here, there is no reason to agree to one parent having custody, it is simply the court’s bias.

Then sole custody went from one parent to the other, showing the courts inability to allow shared custody and its open bias against it.

This case starts in New Hampshire, where one parent lost custody of their children. No explanation is given for that decision. So the parent splits, a disappointing act, but on some level who can blame them. If we expect people to behave their best then they should be properly treated.

Although this opinion is not about custody per se, it does contain the following comment:

“The separation agreement provided that the mother would have primary physical custody of the parties' minor child”

Which most likely is untrue, and simply reflects the courts bias against shared custody. Although it most likely is true that there is a signed agreement that includes this statement, it was most likely made under duress or misinformation. In situations where both parents are seen as good parents and are actively involved in their child’s life there is no reason to agree to one parent having custody, it is simply the court’s bias.

The case starts out with the parties “agreeing” to one parent having sole physical custody, it goes further downhill when one parent asks for and gets sole legal custody, which on retrial results in shared legal custody and this appeal. People do not “agree” to give up custody of their children they are lead to believe that the court is openly biased against it, which it is, and then told to “agree” if they want the case to go better.

January 26, 2018

SIMCHA J WELLER vs. CHERI-ANNE MALO, Roberts

Wolohojian, Milkey, Kinder,