NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

22-P-839

MANAS R. PANDA

vs.

MOUSHMITA PANDA.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following a trial on the parties' competing requests for 

modification,1 the father appeals from a judgment of the Probate 

and Family Court denying his requests to modify the parenting 

schedule and school enrollment of the parties' two minor 

children, and increasing his child support payments.2 We discern 

no error or abuse of discretion, and affirm.

1. Parenting time and school enrollment. The father and 

the mother share custody of two minor children, who reside with 

the mother and attend school in Sudbury, pursuant to a detailed 

parenting plan negotiated by the parties as part of their 

1 The father's complaint for modification was met by the mother's 

counterclaim for modification.

2 The father appealed from the modification judgment dated May 3, 

2022. Although he did not appeal from the subsequently entered

amended modification judgment, nothing in that amended judgment 

affects the issues raised on appeal.
2

separation agreement (which was incorporated into the judgment 

of divorce) at the time of their divorce. At the time of the 

parties' divorce, the father was required to travel extensively 

for work, but has since obtained employment that requires much 

less travel. In light of that change in employment, the 

father's parenting time was increased pursuant to a 2018 

modification judgment. 

The father sought further modification of his parenting 

time, requesting that the children be allowed to spend 

additional time every week with him. The father also requested 

that the children attend school in Acton, asserting that the 

Acton school system was superior to the Sudbury school system 

that the children attend. 

The judge denied both requests, finding that the father 

provided no evidence that it would be in the best interests of 

the children to decrease the mother's parenting time. Nor did 

the father present evidence that the children's current 

schooling at Sudbury was not meeting their needs. Instead, the 

judge considered and credited the mother's testimony that the 

children were doing very well at their current school. On this 

record, there was no error in the judge's determination that 

there was no "material and substantial change in the 

circumstances of the parties" such that a modification of the 

children's parenting schedule and school enrollment would be 
3

necessary to further their best interests.3 See G. L. c. 208, 

§ 28. 

2. Child support. The father contends that the judge 

relied on incorrect calculations in determining to increase the 

father's child support obligation.4 "We review child support 

orders . . . to determine if there has been a judicial abuse of 

discretion" (citation omitted). J.S. v. C.C., 454 Mass. 652, 

660 (2009). 

There was no abuse of discretion. Since the father and 

mother divorced and negotiated their support obligations in 

2016, both parties underwent changes in employment and financial 

circumstances. The judge credited the mother's financial 

information and expressly discredited the father's financial 

statements.5 Where the judge found that the father did not 

accurately reflect his ownership interests in real estate and 

3 We note that the father submitted a motion to include 

additional pictures, submitted to this court following his 

notice of appeal, as part of the record on appeal. We deny the 

motion, as the pictures were not part of the record before the 

trial judge. See Mass. R. A. P. 8, as appearing in 481 Mass. 

1611 (2019).

4 The father had requested that the amount of child support be 

reduced, and the mother counterclaimed for an increase in the 

father's child support obligation.

5 It appears that the original amount of child support was a 

negotiated figure by the parties, as no child support guidelines 

were submitted to the judge prior to the divorce. Although the 

father submitted a child support guidelines worksheet with his 

postjudgment motion to reconsider, this worksheet contained the 

same financial information that the judge considered and 

discredited in her child support determination.
4

included business expenses that were not proper deductions for 

calculating child support, we cannot say that the judge's 

credibility determination was "plainly wrong" (citation 

omitted). Macri v. Macri, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 362, 366 (2019).6

Judgment dated May 3, 2022, 

affirmed.7

By the Court (Green, C.J., 

Wolohojian & 

Sullivan, JJ.8),

Clerk

Entered: June 6, 2023.

6 The judge also ordered the increase in the father's child 

support obligation to apply nunc pro tunc to the date of the 

modification trial. This is not an abuse of discretion where 

the increase in child support obligation was based on the 

financial information that the parties submitted during the 

trial. 

7 While this appeal was pending, the father moved for a stay of 

execution of the modification judgment. Our disposition of the 

appeal renders that motion moot.

8 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.