Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 11-18-2024
Case Style:
Case Number: 23-P-1309
Judge: Not Available
Court: Probate and Family Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Boston, Massachusetts family law lawyers represented the Plaintiff and the Defendant in a child custody dispute.
After a brief relationship between the parties, the child was born in 2010. The father obtained adjudication of his paternity in 2011. The trial judge found the parties' difficulty in communicating created a risk that, if the mother were granted sole legal custody, she would allow the father only whatever input into the child's life she believed was appropriate, and that she would attempt to control his parenting time. The trial judge thus ordered a paternity judgment giving the parties joint legal custody, with primary physical custody to the mother, substantial parenting time for the father, and a requirement that he pay child support.
In late 2021, the mother filed a complaint for contempt alleging, as relevant here, that the father had failed to pay child support. Shortly thereafter, the father filed a complaint for modification of the paternity judgment, alleging that changed circumstances warranted giving him legal custody and primary physical custody of the child. He also sought elimination of his child support obligation.
After a two-day trial in 2023, a different judge found changed circumstances, described further infra, and entered a modification judgment granting the father sole legal custody and ordering shared physical custody with the parties having approximately equal parenting time. The judge also terminated the father's child support obligation, while preserving existing arrears. The judge issued a thorough rationale and, subsequently, 101 findings of fact. The judge also entered judgment for the father on the mother's contempt complaint, finding as relevant here that, although child support had not been current, the father's nonpayment was "not found to be willful [but] due to unemployment and lack of income." The judgment was silent on the issue of attorney's fees. The mother appealed from both judgments.
Chesler v. Ivanova, 23-P-1309 (Mass. App. Nov 18, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: