Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-27-2024
Case Style:
S.S. v. S.S.
Case Number: 23-P-1022
Judge: Charistine D. Anthony
Court: Probate and Family Court Department, Middlesex County, Maryland
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Cambridge Divorce Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Cambridge Divorce Lawyer Directory
Description:
Cambridge, Massachusetts divorce lawyers represented husband and wife in a marriage dissolution case involving alimorny.
The parties were married in India on October 25, 2009. Their first child was born in February 2014. Their second child, who was delivered in September 2020, was stillborn. Both parties are highly educated. The husband obtained a Ph.D. in 2004 and has worked continuously at a university in Boston since that time. The wife obtained a master's degree in urban health in 2018 and worked at times during the marriage as a dental assistant.
The husband filed a complaint for divorce on May 20, 2021, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Trial was held on January 10, 2023. Only two witnesses testified: the husband, and the special master appointed to sell the former marital home. The judge admitted several exhibits in evidence, including a report of the guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed to evaluate the issues of custody and a parenting plan for the parties' child. The judge also accepted a stipulation of uncontested facts submitted by the parties.
The evidence regarding the wife's mental health condition, which was a key factor in the judge's determination of the alimony award, consisted of the GAL's report and the parties' stipulation. The GAL's report, which the judge credited in full, describes a mental health evaluation that the wife was required to undergo in 2018 in connection with a District Court criminal case. The doctor who conducted the evaluation, Roger Gray, issued a report in November 2018, diagnosing the wife with delusional disorder, persecutory type. Dr. Gray noted, however, that schizophrenia could not be ruled out and that "[t]he future expressions of [the wife's] disorder will most likely clarify the diagnostic question."
Later in his report, the GAL states that the wife was diagnosed with schizophrenia while visiting India in 2019, but that the evaluator indicated that follow up was necessary, which was not done. The GAL's report also discusses an evaluation of the wife conducted in 2021 by psychiatrist Timothy Scarella. During that evaluation the wife acknowledged she was depressed, but denied experiencing paranoia or delusions and claimed that Dr. Gray misdiagnosed her in 2018. Dr. Scarella reported a working diagnosis of "[m]ajor [d]epressive disorder, single episode, severe, partial remission." The GAL's report further notes that the wife's therapist reported in 2021 that the wife presented as "relatively clinically stable," did not show any signs of schizophrenia, and was working to manage "her depressive and anxiety symptoms." Ultimately, the GAL concluded that the wife's "diagnosis and treatment still need clarification," and he recommended the services of a mental health case manager to help the wife develop a treatment plan targeted at her needs.
The parties' stipulation of uncontested facts also references the court-ordered evaluation conducted by Dr. Gray. The parties agreed that Dr. Gray diagnosed the wife with delusional disorder, persecutory type, but could not rule out schizophrenia. In addition the stipulation states that the parties "reported to the GAL that she was diagnosed with
[s] chizophrenia in India, while on visits there in 2018[2] and took medicine for same, evidence of which was presented to the GAL by the [h]usband." In light of these diagnoses, the parties agreed that the wife's "mental health is impaired" and that, "as a result of the impairment," she "is limited in her ability to work and care for the child."
Based on these two documents, the judge found that the wife suffers from "significant mental health issues." In support the judge cited Dr. Gray's diagnosis of delusional disorder, persecutory type, or possible schizophrenia; the parties' report to the GAL that the wife was diagnosed with schizophrenia in India; and their stipulation regarding the wife's mental health impairment and inability to work or care for the child. The judge also mentioned the opinion of the GAL that the stillbirth of the parties' second child in September 2020 aggravated the wife's mental health issues.
These findings then formed the basis of the judge's decision to deviate from the presumptive durational limit on alimony. The judge determined that the length of the parties' marriage, for purposes of calculating alimony, was 139 months (about eleven and one-half years) and that the presumptive durational limit for marriages of this length would be ninety-seven months (about eight years). The judge concluded, however, that the interests of justice required deviation because the wife "suffers from significant mental illness," which renders her "currently unable to engage in employment." While acknowledging that "the marriage was relatively short in duration," the judge reasoned that deviation was still warranted because the wife "is entirely dependent on [the] [h]usband for her support as a result of her significant mental health issues." The judge accordingly ordered the husband to pay alimony to the wife until either party's death,
[3] the wife's remarriage, or further order of the court, whichever is first to occur.
S.S. v. S.S., 23-P-1022 (Mass. App. Aug 27, 2024)
Outcome:
So much of the second amended judgment of divorce nisi as pertains to the duration of the husband's alimony obligation is vacated, and the matter is remanded for entry of a judgment reflecting that the husband's alimony obligation will terminate in accordance with G. L. c. 208, ยง 49. In all other respects, the second amended judgment is affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Find a Lawyer
Find a Case
