If you live in Massachusetts, by now you've probably heard about Alimony Reform. Both the House and Senate have passed the Alimony Reform Act of 2011 and it now awaits the approval of the House again (for some language changes made by the Senate). Although, the majority of people in Massachusetts are just now learning about this reform, it has actually been in the works for at least 10 years. In various forms there have been numerous attempts to update the alimony laws in Massachusetts, culminating with a recent Legislative Task Force which authored and approved the current bill.





The same type of reform may be on the horizon for the Massachusetts custody statute.



The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a public hearing on May 18, 2011 where public testimony was given primarily on Alimony Reform and a pending human trafficking bill. But there were also a few people (mostly fathers) who were there to present testimony in support of a few different bills that would make changes to how custody is determined in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Courts. After further review there are currently six pending bills which would make significant changes in this area, and six more that would make minor tweaks or additions to the current custody statute.



We have provided links to the current custody statute and each of the proposed bills, below. Over the next two weeks we will be posting a series of blogs evaluating the pros and cons of each of these proposals and comparing them to the current statute. We believe that, similar to alimony reform, there are flaws in the current law that could be improved with some updating. However, we also recognize that some of these proposals go too far.



We will provide insight to how these proposals might work in certain instances and fail in others and we hope that our analysis over the course of these posts will provide a benefit from our experience as family law practitioners.



Current Statute: M.G.L. 208 s 31 - Custody of children; shared custody plans



S.659 – Legislation to strengthen family relationships through responsible shared parenting;



S.847 – Legislation to share custody of minor children of divorced or separated parents;



H.1306 – Legislation relative to shared parenting in cases of divorce;



H.1330 – Legislation relative to the determination of the legal custody of children in court cases;



H.2244 – Legislation relative to the rights of parents in child custody proceedings;



H.2684 – Legislation relative to supporting children and parental custody;



H.2851 – Legislation relative to mediation of divorce cases involving children;



H.1305 – Legislation relative to child care involvement of non-custodial parents;



S.691– Legislation relative to parental choice of terminology in certain domestic relations matters;



H.2258– Legislation relative to parental choice in child custody agreements;



H.3289 – Legislation relative to the modification of custody orders involving parents called to active military service;



H.3289 – Legislation to prohibit certain activities within the home until a divorce is final and financial and custody issues are resolved.



To read more about Shared Parenting in Massachusetts, check out the following pages:



Parenting Plan Worksheet - Use this worksheet to help compare potential or proposed Parenting Plans on a user-friendly calendar.



Child Custody Mediation

Collaborative Child Custody Resolution

Child Custody Litigation

Dammit Jim, I'm a Lawyer not a Priest!



I often have to refer my clients to other professionals when issues arise in a divorce case that I do not have professional training to deal with. The most common example is when I tell clients that they need to seek the assistance of a therapist, because they are using me to help deal with emotional problems. But there is also the rare occasion when a client will ask me whether they should do something which I find morally offensive but which is technically not illegal. In these situations I will explain to a client that their actions may not have legal consequences but they may have other (moral) consequences. In other words, just because something is legal doesn't mean you'll be able to sleep at night.



A good example of this distinction is the latest case of divorced parents acting inappropriately:



Mr. Morelli published a Blog entitled "The Psycho Ex-Wife" where he and his current significant other bash his ex-wife and even, in some instances, his own children. The Court ordered him to take the site down, and this has sparked significant controversy over his potential First Amendment rights.



There are really two issues at play in this case, and many commentators seem to be confusing the two. The first issue is whether or not Mr. Morelli should be legally allowed to publish this material. Or put another way, is his speech protected by the First Amendment? The second, and just as important, issue is whether or not Mr. Morelli's actions are moral.



Because this is a Blog devoted to legal issues in family law, I will address the legal question first:



1. Is the Psycho Ex-Wife Blog protected by the First Amendment?



I have seen many Judges order parents not to disparage the other parent in front of, or within earshot of the children. In addition, we often include this provision in our parenting plan agreements. Obviously parents can agree to limit their rights, but is it a violation of the First Amendment to prohibit parents from speaking their mind to their children?



The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Courts have expanded this limitation on Congress to include any "state action" by officials of any level of government, which would include state Judges. But that doesn't mean that freedom of speech is absolute. There are limitations which the U.S. Supreme Court has found are permissible.



The most common example is that you are not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. The incitement to riot or violence is considered unprotected for obvious reasons.



But there are other limitations that should be common-sense as well. You do not have the right to slander others, and in fact you may be subject to civil litigation if you do. You also don't have the right to publish obscenities. While these limitations are often difficult to pinpoint and usually involve some gray area, the overriding theme is that the government is not allowed to limit your speech because it is unpopular or distasteful, but can limit speech to protect the public.



In the Psycho-Ex Wife Blog case, the state Judge is trying to protect the children, and most state laws give Judges broad discretion to protect the best interest of children in custody disputes. In most cases, the Judge is not ordering that a parent cannot complain about their ex, but only that they can't do it in front of their children, who could obviously be damaged by such comments. It seems that this type of limitation is within the scope of restrictions which have previously been allowed.



Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective), we are unlikely to see such a clear-cut case address this issue in front of the Supreme Court, because what parent wants to be the one to take an appeal to the Supreme Court claiming they should be able to tell their children directly that their Mom is a psycho.



In this case, Mr. Morelli has not taken it that far. Instead he has attempted to blur the line by claiming that his Blog was sufficiently anonymous and that the children would not have known about it if not for their Mother showing them the website. If the Mother showed the children the site then certainly her actions are as deplorable as his, but the legal question is: would they have found it anyway? The distinction he is attempting to make is that telling your children directly that their Mom is a psycho is different than writing it on the internet. But is it really that different?



Given how often we write on this blog about being careful with anything you put on the internet, you can probably guess where we come down on this issue. You should assume that everything you put on the internet is public and will be seen by anyone who can access the internet, especially the people you least want to see it. The idea that Mr. Morelli can protect his children from something he writes on the internet forever is laughable, and clearly that is where his argument breaks down. I can't recognize the practical distinction between saying something directly to your children and writing something on the internet in a forum where it can be copied, reposted, discussed on other blogs, and even end up on the Today Show.



The simple fact that this story has now made national news proves my point that once you put something on the internet you risk it having a life of its own and growing to a point where you do not control who sees it. This is especially true for your own children who have all the motivation in the world to read everything you tell them not to.



If there is no practical distinction between calling your ex a psycho on the internet, and saying it in front of your children, then the only way that you can support Mr. Morelli's First Amendment argument is to agree that he should have a constitutionally protected right to say these things directly to his children. Given the amount of psychological damage that can cause children of divorce, I don't think the First Amendment stretches that far.



2. But even if the First Amendment does protect his speech, Is it Right?



On principle, we don't endorse asking your lawyer for moral advice. But if you've read this far, you probably already know what our answer to this question is. Mr. Morelli doesn't seem to understand that his actions increase the conflict, not minimize them. He claims he chose this outlet as a way to help others, but there is a distinction between wanting to tell the world how bad your ex is and trying to find solutions about how to deal with those problems. This is a distinction lost on many, especially those who are particularly angry about how their divorce went. Complaining can be cathartic, but it doesn't solve problems and if you complain in a forum accessible to your ex, then you are more likely increasing the conflict, not trying to deflate it.



Many people will try to turn this case into a forum to talk about how hard it is to be a divorced mother vs. a divorced father (just read the comments on Huffington Post to see how far this has gone). This is exactly what Mr. Morelli was trying to do. Like many on the internet he was seeking validation through shared experience, and that validation was more important to him than his children's well-being. If he truly believes that his children would never see the words he wrote on the obviously public form of the internet than he is delusional.



Unfortunately, it is much more likely that he is looking for the same validation from his children that he is from the public. It is far more likely that when he wrote this blog he was actually hoping his children would see it some day.



This desire to be the "validated" parent is a common feeling. Parents often want their children to be on "their side" and understand that the other parent is at fault. The reason that the court has to tell parents that they shouldn't bad-mouth their ex-spouse in front of their children, is exactly because this feeling is common-place. Sometimes common-sense and moral judgment must be used to overcome strong emotional responses. Sometimes being a good parent is about biting your tongue. Mr. Morelli and his "psycho ex-wife" would be better off if they learned that lesson, or at least their children would be.

It doesn't take a child development specialist to know that children of different ages have different needs. But how do we apply this knowledge to create age-appropriate parenting plans?

The greatest key to working out an appropriate parenting plan regardless of age, is being able to communicate effectively with your co-parent (or take advantage of resources to help you communicate effectively such as mediation or collaborative divorce).

But if you are not able to work out a plan directly, or need assistance in figuring out what might work best, there are resources available.

Zero to Three: Parenting Issues and Parenting Plans For Young Children is an article devoted specifically to the developmental needs and corresponding parenting plans for very young children.

In Massachusetts, the Court recognizes that their are certain developmental stages that each child goes through, and that it is important for both parents to be involved in the child's life for their development to be complete. In an attempt to recognize at least some generalities in these differences, a committee of mental health practitioners, family law lawyers and Judges wrote a very useful guide to shared parenting called Planning for Shared Parenting: A Guide for Parents Living Apart.

In addition, a similar committee of Massachusetts judges, practitioners and mental health professionals produced Model Parenting Plans, which in many ways correspond to the recomendations suggested by the earlier Planning for Shared Parenting brochure.

At Kelsey & Trask, P.C. we have created a Parenting Plan Worksheet to help you visualize these Model Parenting Plans and/or other Custom parenting plans on a color-coded Calendar.

Split Physical Custody usually refers to a situation where there are multiple children and one or some of the children reside primarily with one parent, while other of the children reside primarily with the other parent. Split custody is unusual because it is more typical that the parenting schedule that works for one child will work best for the other children as well.

However every family situation is unique which is why parenting plans should be tailored to each individual family, and in some situations it may be appropriate,or even beneficial, to divide children between households.

If a parent wants to move a child's residence out of the country, then the same laws apply as when the parent wants to move to another state, though the evaluation by the Court may be slightly different. The removal statute is discussed at length in our previous blog: What do I do if my ex wants to move out of state with our child?.

If you are afraid that the other parent may remove the child illegally and once the child is out of the country it may be difficult to get them back, then there is still something you can do. The U.S. Department of State has a website entitled Child Abduction Prevention with many useful tips including:

1. Be aware of your state's laws relating to removing the child from your state against the other parent's wishes. This is a crime in most states and may also be a federal crime.

2. Obtain a custody order that clearly defines both your and the other parent's rights relating to the child and any limitations on those rights.

3. Be aware of U.S. Passport law, which requires the signature of both parents to obtain a passport for a child. If you are concerned that your ex might try to obtain a passport without your signature or with a forged signature, then you should apply to The Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program. You can obtain the entry form by clicking here.

4. If your child already has a passport you can ask the Court to require its surrender.


Thank you to Robert P. Schneiders, Esq. of Canton, MA for forwarding us this information on The Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program.

In Massachusetts, M.G.L. c. 208 Section 30: Minor Children; Removal from Commonwealth; Prohibition states that a child who the Massachusetts' probate courts have jurisdiction over shall not be removed from the Commonwealth without consent of both parents or Order of the Court. This statute does not apply to vacations; generally the term "removal" refers to a change of residence.

If one parent unilaterally moves out of state with the child without the permission of the other parent and without an Order of the Court, then you must act immediately to force the return of the child. If the child resides out of state for more than six (6) months then under the laws of most states (most states having enacted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, or some variation of it), that other state will now be the "home state" and have jurisdiction over the child. You should consult with an attorney about the appropriate action to bring before a Court in order to obtain an order requiring the child to be returned (which will then have to be brought to the other state and enforced, through the use of law enforcement if necessary).

If both parents do not agree to allowing one parent to move with the child to a different state, then the parent that wants to move is required to file a Petition for Removal. If the Court has already ruled on the custody of the minor child, in a Paternity or Divorce judgment, then this it typically done with the filing of a Complaint for Modification.

The standard for approval of a request for Removal is actually a two-part test as defined in the landmark case Yannas v. Fronditsou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704 (1985). The Court in Yannas created a two-part test:

First, the parent requesting removal must first show the court that there is a "good, sincere reason" for the move. This is often described as the "real advantage test." Examples of acceptable "good, sincere reasons" are a lucrative job opportunity, significantly greater family support, or a new spouse who resides in another state. In Pizzino v. Miller, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 865 (2006) the Court found that "a sincere desire to be with a spouse is, per se, a good and sufficient reason".

The second part of the test requires the Court to evaluate whether the move is in the best interest of the minor children. Typically if the first part of the test is meant, the "real advantage" likely carries over and demonstrates that the move is also in the best interest of the minor child. Meeting the second part of the test may be more difficult, however, in the case where both parents are significantly involved in the minor child's life, such as when there is a joint physical custody arrangement.

On April 7, 2010, the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Courts in Massachusetts, Paula M. Carey, signed Standing Order 1-10: Special Procedures for Cases Involving Children. That order sets out the details for a pilot program in the Hampshire Division of the Probate and Family Court. The pilot program is intended to provide special services and requirements related to the resolution of child-related issues in any case involving children (such as Divorce, Separate Support, Paternity, Support/Custody/Visitation, Modification, Contempt, Guardianship and Termination of Parental Rights cases).

The order requires, among other things, that attorneys and parents/care-givers attempt to solve parenting related problems before seeking the assistance of the court, and to conduct themselves in a way that recognizes the unique issues involved in child-related cases.

More specifically, the order requires that parties and their attorneys participate in an "Introductory Meeting", no later than 45 days after the filing of Answer and/or prior to any Motion hearing. Essentially, the court is requiring a 4-way (similar to that required prior to a Pre-Trial) to try and force parties to work out parenting issues prior to presenting them to the Court.

The order also encourages people to seek the assistance of other professionals as necessary to assist in the proper development of parenting and care-giver plans.

These requirements will increase initial attorney's fees and costs to clients. The benefits to the children, however, could be substantial by focusing early on how a court case (such as a divorce case) affects the children, and trying to address these issues early.

For further information on this program, its origins and its goals readThe Origins of a Child Focused Family Court Model. written by Gail L. Perlman, the First Justice of the Hampshire Division of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court. The article is available on page 3 of the Spring 2010 issue of the Family Mediation Quarterly.

Under Standing Order 99-1 of the Probate & Family Court, if you have any minor children at the time of the filing of your divorce case, you are required to attend the Court-sponsored Parents Apart education program before you can present either a settlement of your case, or present your case for trial. A brochure which lists the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the various organizations that provide this program, in alphabetical order by town, is available by clicking here.

You should immediately enroll in and attend this course because your case cannot end until you have completed the course, which consists of two 3 hour sessions. After completion of the program you will be provided with a golden Certificate of Completion, which you must provide to the Court. If you give this golden copy to your attorney, they can ensure that it is properly filed with the Court and this requirement fulfilled.

But, what if you can't attend?

I have worked on numerous cases where one of the parties had moved to another country or state and was unable to return to Massachusetts to take the course, usually due to financial constraints. In those limited circumstances, Judge's will sometimes allow a Motion to Waive Attendance.

Pursuant to a recent Press Release from the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court Department, dated April 12, 2010, the court may suggest use of a DVD as a replacement for participation in the program (as a an alternative to a complete waiver).

According to the Press Release: "On a limited basis, use of a DVD program entitled KidCare for Co-Parents: An Educational Program for Divorcing Families is now available when a judge is considering a waiver.

KidCare for Co-Parents is a four and a half hour multimedia, interactive program which can be used with a DVD player on either a personal computer or a television screen. Completion of the interactive aspects of the DVD is required in order to obtain the Certificate of Attendance which must then be provided to the Court."

In Tuesday's New York Times, there was an article entitled "Losing Fatherhood" that explores how DNA testing has changed the face of Fatherhood in America. It's an interesting read and raises the question of what does it really mean to be a Father.

Last night on the ABC comedy the Modern Family, the patriarch played by Ed O'Neill (of Al Bundy fame) states that "90% of being a Father is just showing up."

In Modern Family Ed O'Neill's character, Jay Pritchett, has an adult gay son who is in a couple and has an adopted daughter, and an adult daughter who is married with three children as well. In addition, Jay Pritchett has re-married to a younger woman and has a step-son. Although there are three distinct families in the show, all with different "father figures", they are all tied together by their relationship to Jay.

In last night's episode (available online here) Jay plays the role of grand-father, father and step-father and in all of these interactions, Jay shows what it means to be a Father. By just "showing up" he is not perfect, but he is involved, protective and loving. This is especially obvious in the show when his step-son's biological father fails to show up for a visitation.

For me, this show highlights the fact that whether or not a family is "traditional" or "non-traditional" we can all still tell the difference parents can make in a family by being involved and at least "showing-up."

A recent Op-ed article in the New York times, entitled No Fault of Their Own, suggests that we should change the way custody decisions are made to minimize litigation and fighting over children. The author notes that custody battles, that leave the issue of what is in "the best interest of the child" to the Judge to decide, often result in trials over who is the "better" parent.

This is a valid point. The damage that these types of battles can cause to children warrants a different approach to family law than to the practice of other types of law. While zealous advocacy for a corporate client whose vendor screwed them on a contract might necessitate a trial or dictate destructive cross-examination, in family law this type of litigious approach hurts children.

I often explain to my clients that it is not constructive when they form their view or their goals in a divorce case with a negative comment about their ex-spouse. I want my clients to tell me what their life looks like in five years, so together we can figure out how to get them to that goal, not what they "deserve" to receive from their ex-spouse. I believe this is the point of no-fault divorce.

Similarly, I like the concept of No-Fault custody. I want my clients to tell me what is best for their children, by telling me about their children's schedules, and activities and friends. Telling me what a bad parent the other person is, doesn't describe what is best for the child. In fact it's simply a waste of time unless that parent is so bad that they are unfit.

The author of the op-ed article concludes that mandatory mediation or amendments to the way child support is calculated could help move the system towards No-Fault custody. I believe that regardless of whether couples mediate, or what the child support is, common-sense is the key to resolving custody battles. 99% of custody disputes can be solved by parents, and attorneys, who are willing to set aside the fight, participating in an open an honest four-way conference (with or without a mediator) about what is actually best for the child with reference to the child's needs and activities and schedule.

I don't know if No-Fault Custody is something the state can legislate due to the need for the law to protect against the truly un-fit parents. But I do know that less children would be harmed by divorce if more attorneys and more parents would practice No-Fault Custody.

For more information about proposed resolutions of co-parenting issues, please read our Custody page and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts brochure: Planning for Shared Parenting: A Guide for Parents Living Apart.

Getting divorced doesn’t always mean the end of a relationship. When parents of a child get divorced, there is a need for some form of continuing communication and cooperation. When parents fail to recognize that need for ongoing cooperation, the child is the one who suffers.

The latest example of parents putting their child in the middles is the story of Joseph and Rebecca Reyes as reported in this ABC news story:


Joseph Reyes returned home from serving in Afghanistan and soon married his sweetheart, Rebecca. Because Rebecca is Jewish and Joseph was Catholic, Joseph converted to Judaism to make his wife, and her family, happy. After a few years, and the birth of a daughter, their marriage had started to deteriorate.

Religion became a contentious issue between the two, and they decided to get divorced. Rebecca became the daughter’s custodial parent, and Joseph had visitation rights. Although Rebecca had been raising their daughter in the Jewish faith, Joseph unilaterally decided to have her baptized. He sent pictures of the baptism to Rebecca, who responded by getting a court order prohibiting Joseph from bringing the girl to church. In response, Joseph had a local television crew follow him as he brought his daughter to church in violation of this order, for which he now may face jail time.

While some have been quick to criticize this as what feels like an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over another, the issue was that Joseph had his daughter baptized without first discussing the matter with Rebecca. Getting along with an ex-spouse is often not an easy task, but some level of cooperation is necessary for the healthy upbringing of any children caught in the middle. With Joseph and Rebecca, regardless of who “wins” in a courtroom, their daughter loses.

Parents who find themselves struggling over child-care issues with an ex-spouse should consider going to a therapist with experience in post-divorce relationships, taking advantage of the resources that organizations such as The Divorce Center offer, or trying mediation. It’s certainly in the best interests of the child to work towards agreement on these types of issues rather than involving T.V. cameras.

A Complaint for Modification is the action by which you can request that the Court make a change to past Court Judgments. If the Orders that you want changed are only Temporary Orders then you must request a change by Motion.

A Complaint for Modification is the beginning of a new action and should only be used to change permanent orders which are called Judgments. To succeed on a Complaint for Modification you must prove two things: first you must prove that there has been a "significant material change in circumstances;" and second you must prove that the change in circumstances warrants a change in the Court's Order.

A "significant material change in circumstances" is a change in your life that is big enough to have an effect on the factors that related to the original Order of the Court. For example, if the Order that you want to change is a Child Support Order, then you must demonstrate that there has been a change to the factors that affect a Child Support determination, such as the income of the parties, expenses of the parties or needs of the children. In addition, you must demonstrate that that change is significant. In Child Support cases a good rule of thumb for determining significance is whether or not the change in circumstances would result in a 20% change in the Child Support Order.

I have recently become a Father and I spend a lot of time amazed at how my daughter changes every day. Those changes mean that her needs continue to change and grow, and paying attention to those changes is part of effective parenting.

Every case is different, especially when it comes to family dynamics, so every case requires your attorney to listen and learn about YOUR family. Because every family is so different, there cannot be specific guidelines on custody and visitation for every family or even every child.

The Court does try to recognize that their are certain developmental stages that each child goes through, and that it is important for both parents to be involved in the child's life for their development to be complete, and also that at each stage, a child's needs are different.

In an attempt to recognize at least some generalities in these differences, a committee of mental health practitioners, family law lawyers and Judges was formed. They wrote a very useful guide to shared parenting called Planning for Shared Parenting: A Guide for Parents Living Apart. Our firm recommends that any parent involved in a custody case read this brochure and use it as a starting point for thinking about and discussing how their child's unique needs can be met by a well-thought out and tailored Parenting Plan, and how that Parenting Plan will have to change as the child grows older.