Handy Tool for Massachusetts Parenting Time Records

I am often asked by clients what type of record keeping they should be doing when going through difficult child custody or visitation matters. Many people keep no records, which can create difficulties when you're trying to discuss the extent of parenting time and involvement in a child's life. Some client's keep less detailed calendar's which denote dates of visitation and (sometimes) length, but rarely include the true meat and potatoes of the visit or more specifically, what did you do?

What I have included after the break if a handy form for you to use to keep track completely of your parenting time with your child or children. The sample that I have placed below the break contains a watermark with my contact information. If this is a form that you are interested in utilizing please feel free to contact me.

Distributing Marital Assets in a Massachusetts Divorce

The division of marital assets in Massachusetts divorce cases is controlled by M.G.L. c. 208 s. 34. Often the division of the assets in a marriage is at the forefront of a client's mind, and they want to know what the Court takes into consideration when making such a division. The following information are the criteria to be taken into account by the Probate and Family Courts of the Commonwealth in determining what is a fair and equitable distribution of the marital estate.

1.  Length of marriage
2.  Conduct of the respective parties during the marriage.
3.  Ages of the respective parties.
4.  Health of the respective parties.
5.  Station of the respective parties.
6.  Occupations of the respective parties.
7.  Amount and sources of income of the respective parties.
8.  Vocational skills of the respective parties.
9.  Employability of the respective parties.
10.  Estates of the respective parties.
11.  Liabilities of the respective parties.
12.  Needs of the respective parties.
13.  Current needs of the minor children of the marriage.
14.  Future needs of the minor children of the marriage.
15.  Opportunities available to the respective parties for future acquisition of capital.
16.  Opportunities available to the respective parties for future acquisition of income.
17.  Contributions of the respective parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of their    estates.
18.  Contributions of Husband and Wife as homemaker.
19.  Present and future needs of the dependent children.

Child Support Modification After Morales

On March 12, 2013 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a decision in Morales v. Morales which clarified the nature of child support modification in the Commonwealth. In Morales, the lower court (in this case the Worcester Probate & Family Court) denied a Complaint for Modification, finding that there was no "material and substantial change in circumstance and no modification was warranted."

The SJC, in overturning the lower court decision found that the "no material change in circumstance" finding was not warranted as G.L. c. 208 § 28 merely sets out that "if there is an inconsistency between the amount of the existing order and the amount that would result from application of the child support guidelines" a modification is warranted. This standard, typically referred to as the inconsistency standard, stands in place of the material change in circumstance standard and permits a modification, if and when, there is an inconsistency in the amount of support to be paid -- regardless of the amount of time that has passed since the entry of the order.

The timeliness argument and finding is interesting. Under the Child Support Guidelines as they are promulgated in the Commonwealth "any child support order less than three years old may be modified only if there has been either (1) a change in health insurance coverage, or (2) a material change in circumstances." In Morales, the lower court found no change in health insurance, and no material change in circumstances in a child support order that was less than three years old --- and yet the SJC overturned the decision because of the inconsistency.

So, how did the SJC rectify the seeming incongruous Child Support Guidelines and G.L. c. 208 § 28? Judge Botsford, writing for the Court specified that the Child Support Guidelines were promulgated pursuant to Federal law, specifically the Family Support Act of 1988. Following the passage of the Family Support Act of 1988, the Commonwealth passed G.L. c. 208 § 28 "to provide that child support modifications would thereafter be governed by the inconsistency standard." The Court found that though "there have been subsequent amendments to Title IV-D that reflect yet additional changes to the Federal legal standard applicable to support order modifications, the inconsistency standard in § 28 has not been amended to take these Federal statutory amendments into account. Accordingly, we are bound to apply the provisions of § 28 as written."

What does this mean for you?

Well, if you are currently paying or receiving child support and you believe that there is a difference between the amount you are paying or receiving and the amount that you should be paying or receiving then you should be prepared to file a Complaint for Modification, even if every other fact applicable to your case is precisely the same as it was when the previous order was put into place. 

Modification is often difficult and is almost always highly contentious, as a Family Law attorney I would always recommend hiring a Family law attorney to help you address your Modification concerns and presenting your case. If you would like to speak to me about possibly filing a Modification my contact information is included in the bar at the righthand side of this page, please feel free to contact me at any time.

How Parental Alienation Syndrome Brainwashes the Child

This is a video that was created by Les Linet, M.D. from Princeton, NJ and I thought it did a good job of describing things that I see when dealing with cases in parental alienation. I would only preface this video by saying that in my experience the alienating parent can be either the Mother or Father. This video uses examples that rely on the Mother being the alienating parent, and by posting this video I do not wish to suggest that only Mother's alienate their children. I have been involved in cases where Father's have attempted to alienate their children from the children's Mother as well.

Please Don't Put That on Facebook

From the bench one afternoon I heard a Worcester Probate Court Judge ask a pro se defendant "what do you think is on my Facebook?" The litigant hemmed and hawed until the Judge answered the question "Nothing, because I don't have a Facebook page."

This remark wasn't made merely to lighten the mood during an otherwise contentious custody battle between two pro se litigants. The Court had just finished hearing about how the defendant posted pictures on Facebook of drinking, drug use and partying. There were Facebook status updates that said "I apologize to my liver in advance" and "I shouldn't be driving #drunk." When these were posted by the defendant there was never a thought that these things would come up in a Court proceeding, which is precisely the problem.

People do not think when they post things on Facebook. 

I can tell you that the first thing I do when I've been retained is check the Facebook page of the opposing party. It's a quick, easy and simple way to learn about the other side. If I see pictures of drugs, drinking or other "high risk" behaviors, I make mental notes or better yet I print the offending pages.

You wouldn't believe the things that I've caught people in through their Facebook pages. Here's an example.

John Doe (client) is the father/custodial parent, Jane Doe (opposing party) gave up custody voluntarily two years prior and moved to State X with her boyfriend. Over the course of two years, Jane has no physical contact with the child, and only minimal text message/telephone contact with a then 3 - 5 year old (how effective is text messaging a 4 year old? You tell me). Jane comes to Massachusetts where John and the child reside for a wedding. Jane does not tell John she is in town and does not try to arrange for visitation. During her stay in Massachusetts, Jane is tipped off to a Court Notice in the newspaper that John was charged with A&B on her girlfriend. Jane runs to Court and files Emergency Motion to change custody due to the pending A&B charge.

Now, John comes to me. I jump on Jane's Facebook account and notice that prior to filing the lawsuit Jane has told her friend in State X that she is currently in Massachusetts for a wedding but will be back in State X in a few weeks. At the hearing on her emergency motion Jane tells the Court that she resides in Massachusetts and is capable of caring for the child. Busted. I pull out the Facebook page, and the story about being a Massachusetts resident falls apart. The Court denies the Motion and we proceed with a regular Complaint for Modification (wherein John retains full custody and Jane disappears).

Now, what's the point of that story? Had Jane not posted on her Facebook that she was returning to State X shortly, I would not have had that information prepared so that I could raise the issue to the Court that our concern was of Jane getting temporary custody of the child and disappearing back to State X. Unwittingly Jane provided me with our case. 

I've got a number of stories like these. I've seen an opposing party who was prohibited from bringing a child around her ex-boyfriend (and drug dealer) post pictures on her Facebook over the weekend of the drug dealing boyfriend swimming in a hotel pool with the child. 

Here's the lesson -- if you're going to have a Facebook profile, make it private. If I can sign on Facebook right now and pull up your entire wall, and photo collection there is a problem (for you). But also, if you're thinking about posting those pictures of you smoking weed with your college roommate during Alumni Weekend maybe you shouldn't do that, maybe it's not a good idea to let the world know on your Facebook page that you drove home "so wasted" last night, or that you're "really hungover" today when you're having visitation with your kids.

Facebook is a nice tool, and I appreciate the significance of social media but please, please, please, do NOT post that on Facebook.