Custody 2023

One parent is no longer found to be unfit, and some attempts are made at reunification.  These are not successful, and the guardianship ensues.  In this opinion the guardianship is reversed

One parent loses custody of their child, but parenting rights are not terminated.  The other parent then moves to Massachusetts to finish the job.  The reason one parent loses custody and then have all parental rights terminated, is not made particularly clear in this opinion, however there did appear to be good reason for this decision

One parent is found unfit, but their rights are not terminated

"At the time the divorce judgment entered, the husband was living in the marital home with the couple's two children, of whom he had primary physical custody."

This statement is not particularly germane to the case, it is not a legal description, sole and shared are, but it is the courts continuing effort to normalize the winner/loser mentality that runs through to many of their decisions

One parent attempts to remove a child from the Commonwealth, but the court does not allow it

One parent is found to be fit, and gains custody of their child.

One parent is found unfit, the other is not.

One parent loses both physical and legal custody, and appeals the loss of legal custody.  The court uses its rather low standard for taking away legal custody, it should be noted that this lower standard is based on the laws related to non married parents, not parties going through a divorce as in this case.

This case is actually about tax deductions, however it is pointed out that one parent first had sole custody of the children, legal and physical, and then the other parent.  Another example of the court's desire to treat one parent as the winner.

A mother tries to raise her children by herself, and struggles.  The court then gives custody to the father.  The idea of having both parents engage in raising their child does not appear to ever be considered

A case goes to a "master"  who then attempts to make custody decisions.  It does not appear that the added input of a "master"  helped the family, which goes to the masters training and abilities.  The case is remanded  because of the manner by which the judge used the "master's" work

Not actually a custody case but one parent does get thrown out of the house by order of the court.  While the behavior of that parent may not be ideal, it is hard to imagine that most people would think this was a necessary action.

A child was taken from one parent and then that parent sought custody.  The court then gave the other parent custody, showing the courts inappropriate bias for sole custody 

"The determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the discretion of the judge"

Not the law, simply the inappropriate bias of the court

It should also be noted that although a hearing was held the recording of the hearing is not available, another troubling aspect of this case.

A child was taken from one parent and then that parent then sought custody.  The other failed to gain custody, the child is a special needs child and the court found that the state was better able to address the needs of the child.

"the wife provided primary support and caretaking for the child and household"

It is highly unlikely this was ever proven in court, and this statement has no bearing on the case, this is simply the court pointing out its support for sexist attitudes.

"The agreement granted physical custody of two minor children (son and daughter) to the defendant"

This is a pretty extreme ruling and it would help if the panel explained the reason for the lower court making this extreme decision.  As expected bad rulings lead to conflict and this case.

The judge in this case allowed a removal from the state by one parent, the case is overruled on a procedural issue and we are not told why the removal was allowed

"The children resided primarily with the wife, and the husband had parenting time for dinner every other Monday, overnight every Wednesday, and from Friday evening to Monday morning every other weekend."

An odd statement, that the children resided "primarily" with one parent, and then in the same sentence laying out the parenting plan, which is a 6 of 14 nights almost a perfectly shared parenting plan, and usually considered as such.

Reading the opinion the panel first addresses the financial issues, which reflects their fixation on other people's money, finally they address the children

The conclusion of the judge was to take away shared legal custody of one parent, and to change the parenting schedule to take an additional night away so that it was a 5 out of 14 night split.

The justification for the change in custody is vague, but it does increase the calculation for child support.

Not actually a custody case, but the recitation of the history of the case shows that one of the two non married parents first gets sole physical custody, and then later both agree to shared physical custody.   It's great when parties can come to an appropriate agreement, often without the help of the court.

One parent had difficulty parenting and so the other parent was granted sole custody, legal and physical.  After dealing with their personal issues that parent sought joint custody, given the bias of the court against joint custody, it was an unlikely outcome.

"The judge awarded sole legal and primary physical custody"

"Primary legal custody" is not a legal term, the court is simply expressing its bias for one parent winning and the other losing

"The determination of which parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the discretion of the judge"

Again, not the law, simply the inappropriate bias of the court

"The touchstone of our inquiry is the best interest of the child."

As it should be, however the open bias for sole custody often prevents this.

Certainly this family exhibited problems, which the courts appears to be unable to help solve, however this panel brings nothing to the table except their bias

One parent is found to be an unfit parent and the other parent gets custody of their child

"Pursuant to the divorce judgment,  the wife received primary physical custody of the two minor children"

Not actually an issue in the case, this is simply the court trying to normalize taking custody away from one parent without explaining these actions. 

"the husband had failed to exercise any parenting time"

An unfortunate turn of events, hopefully the courts decisions did not play a part causing this to occur.