Source: https://blog.skylarklaw.com/2010/
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 04:35:05
Document Index: 640765394

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 416', '§ 5', '§ 26', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 13', '§25', '§26']

Skylark Blog: 2010
Posted by Justin L. Kelsey at 1:46 PM No comments: Links to this post
Posted by Kelsey & Trask, P.C. at 12:00 PM 63 comments: Links to this post
Can I Prevent my Ex from Moving Our Children if they Still Live in-State?
As discussed in a previous post, M.G.L. c. 208 Section 30 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, but rather is intended to prevent the "removal" of children to another state of residence without permission of both parents or the Court's permission.
In a 2003 decision, the Massachusetts Appellate Court expanded this prohibition on removal to include relocation within the Commonwealth if the relocation would "involve significant disruption of the noncustodial parent's visitation rights and the parents cannot agree." D.C. v. J.S., 58 Mass. App. Ct. 351, 355-356 (2003).
If your ex is threatening to move to another part of the state with your children and it would significantly disrupt your parenting time with the children, then you can ask the Court to prevent this move. If the Court agrees that the move would significantly disrupt your parenting time then the court should apply the same standard as in a case involving a removal out of state. It may be prudent for a parent who wants to move, even within the Commonwealth, to ask the Court's permission if the other parent disagrees. This could prevent costly requirements if the Court disallowed the move afterwards.
Posted by Kelsey & Trask, P.C. at 6:10 PM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: child custody, parenting plan, removal, visitation
What is a Parenting Plan? What is the best Parenting Plan for my children?
A Parenting Plan is a comprehensive agreement which sets out both the time that children will spend with each parent as well as the rights and obligations of each parent to the children and the other parent during their parenting time. It can include a holiday visitation schedule, pick-up and drop-off locations, and even agreements relating to what will happen if one of the children becomes ill. Parenting Plans are necessary when two parents live apart (whether because they were never married, are divorced, getting divorced, or simply choosing to live separate and apart).
The best Parenting Plan for each family will depend on the ages of the children in that family,the schedules of both the parents and the children, the relative parenting abilities of each parent, any special needs of the children, and the family's traditions. Many people have trouble figuring out where to start in creating a parenting plan and in order to assist separate parents, the Massachusetts Courts asked a a Task Force of judges, lawyers, probation officers and mental health professionals to provide Model Parenting Plans. The Plans are available on the Massachusetts Courts website and although not mandatory or presumptive they can be helpful in designing a Parenting Plan that reflects the ages of the children and the relative involvement of each parent. While these schedules may not work for every family, they are instructive as to what many experts believe are the types of schedules most likely to encourage positive child development.
When considering the best Parenting Plan for their family, we encourage our clients to review these Model Parenting Plans as well as the guide: Planning for Shared Parenting: A Guide for Parents Living Apart.
Posted by Kelsey & Trask, P.C. at 11:33 AM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: child custody, parenting plan, visitation
Could I be Forced to Pay Child Support for someone else's Child?
Casino Billionaire to pay $100,000 per Month in Child Support for Non-Biological Child: As reported in a recent Boston.com Article, Billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, the major shareholder of MGM Resorts International, has settled with Lisa Bonder Kerkorian, to whom he was married for only 28 days, to pay over $10 million in child support arrears as well as $100,000 in child support per month. Even more shocking than the figures and the short term of the marriage is the fact that Mr. Kerkorian is not the biological father of the child and was purposefully defrauded by the mother who faked a DNA test.
In Massachusetts, a person who is married within 300 days of the birth of the child to the mother is the legal parent of the child even if they are not the biological parent. This is a presumption that can be overcome with a paternity test. However, even if the paternity test proves that the husband is not the biological father, this does not necessarily mean he is not the legal father. Someone who acts like a parent for a period of time long enough for the child to be attached to them as a parent has certain rights and obligations. The best interest of the child require that a "de-facto" parent continue to be involved in their life (i.e. have custody and visitation rights), and in some cases also pay child support.
Even absent a marriage, if a father signs a Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity and is added to the Birth Certificate, then they are presumed to be the Father. After one year passes it becomes almost impossible to undo this legal acknowledgement of parentage. In the case of a faked paternity test or other fraud it might be possible to have a Court undo the acknowledgement even after the one year period. However, in many cases, as was the case with Mr. Kerkorian, the father has now been involved in the child's life and would be considered a "de-facto" parent anyway.
Although, California law may be different than Massachusetts law regarding these types of cases, it is still refreshing to see Mr. Kerkorian willing to pay significant child support and take responsibility for a child that is biologically not his. Of course, this reinforces what we've already learned from so many other non-traditional and adoptive families: You don't have be genetically related to a child to be a good parent.
Posted by Kelsey & Trask, P.C. at 11:15 AM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: child custody, child support, de-facto parent, legal parent
According to a 12 year study by Dr. Robert E. Emery, Ph.D., a Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Virginia, Mediation can have a dramatic impact on children of divorce and their relationship with a non-residential parent. Dr. Emery summarizes his findings in the recent issue of the Family Mediation Quarterly.
The study used a coin-flip to decide whether high-conflict custody cases would try a short-term (five hour average) mediation. The results of only five hours of mediation were amazing, especially with relation to the children.
Twelve years after the average divorce in America, nonresident parents saw their children weekly in only 11% of cases. In the cases where the parties tried mediation based solely on a coin-flip 28% of nonresident parents saw their children weekly after 12 years. This is a significant difference and the difference is even more significant with reference to telephone contact (weekly telephone contact: national average 18% & mediation average 52%).
To see how these effects extended to other parental involvmenet as well (school, discipline, religous upbringing, etc.) check out the article on the MCFM's website here.
Even in high conflict cases these results suggest that just giving mediation a try can be beneficial to your child's relationship with their parents and therefore beneficial to your child's health. Tough statistics to ignore if you care about your children.
To schedule a 1-Hour Free Mediation Consultation with Kelsey & Trask, P.C. call 508.655.5980 or e-mail us.
Posted by Kelsey & Trask, P.C. at 2:32 PM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: child custody, children, mediation
The Role of new Technologies in Divorce Cases.
At Kelsey & Trask, P.C. we recognize that the state-of-the-art technology affects not just the positive aspects of our lives but also the negative. For example, constant access to e-mail, facebook, twitter and similar services provides us with both ways to connect and ways to be distracted (as described further in this NPR article about cell phones interfering with marriages).
It is important therefore to make effective use of technology to help you in your divorce case and also to recognize how the use of technology could hurt your case. These new technologies can also be used to help us learn more about the statistics of divorce (as described in this article about the break-up trends displayed in Facebook posts). Below you can find some resources on our blog and website that deal with both the positive and negative impact of technology on divorce.
We have written many times on this site about the many ways in which Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites are being used in Divorce cases:
- Facebook & Twitter causing Divorces?
- When a Tweet is a Threat
- Protecting your Privacy in a Divorce. Who has access to your mail, e-mail, etc.?
- 5 Worst Divorce Mistakes - Mistake #3: Telling the World your Side of the Story.
- When a Facebook Friend Request is Against the Law
We also use new technologies and social media to assist our clients (and other lawyers) in dealing with and helping to settle divorce cases:
- Waiting in line for the new iPhone? There's no wait (and no cost) to download our Apps!
- Latest iPhone App now available in the App Store: Alimony Calculator
- What is the Stevenson-Kelsey Spousal Support Calculator (now known as The Divorce Spousal Support Calculator)?
- Attorney's Kelsey & Trask on Twitter
- The Kelsey & Trask, P.C. Facebook Fan Page
- The Kelsey & Trask, P.C. Website Resources for Divorce & Mediation
We hope that our clients use these resources to make the divorce experience less traumatic but also take our advice on how to protect themselves when using these resources.
Labels: alimony calculator, divorce, facebook, social networking, technology, twitter
Is it Possible to have More than Two Parents?
Whether or not everyone approves, it is a fact of life that the "traditional nuclear family" is becoming less the norm. In the practice of family law we are encountering more and more unique family structures; some brought on by the advance of technology (like artificial insemination or surrogate parenthood), some brought on by divorce and re-marriage creating step or second families, and some brought on by the changing laws around gay marriage and adoption.
There are situations in the law in which the Courts have already dealt with the issue of whether a non-biological parent could be a "Parent" as well. For instance, in Massachusetts there is a Grandparent Visitation Statute that provides for visitation for grandparents with their grandchildren if they have been significantly involved in the children's lives. Although this standard is strictly applied by the Courts, a win on a grandparent visitation case is essentially a recognition that a child's grandparent is acting as another parent in some capacity and it would benefit the child to continue that relationship.
Similarly, the Courts in Massachusetts have also recognized "de facto" parents in situations where another person (such as an aunt or uncle or step-parent) has been so involved in a child's upbringing that they have become indispensable in that child's life. The Courts have awarded "de facto" non-biological parents rights of custody or visitation (and sometimes obligations for child support) when it is found that that person has been such a large part of the child's life that it is in that child's best interest to maintain that relationship.
Within this framework, the Court has in the past recognized that third-parties can sometimes be indispensable in the raising of a child. Despite the complications that a third player in the custody/visitation arena can cause, the Courts have recognized in some situations it is more beneficial than cutting that person out of the child's life.
Similarly, this same logic is being applied in expanding how the court views parenting arrangements created by "non-traditional" family structures. As discussed at length in a recent Boston Globe Article, Johnny has two mommies – and four dads, this is becoming more common when lesbian or gay couples involve a third biological parent in the conception of the child.
Also discussed in the article is the opposition by some to the inclusion of any third or non-biological parents in parenting (despite the proven value of quality involvement by step-parents in many families). Of course, much of this opposition is just a thinly veiled opposition to any recognition of gay or lesbian rights as depicted in this news story video posted on the website of colleague Gabriel Cheong. As depicted in this news video and in this article, the law is struggling to catch up with how to categorize these different relationships despite the fact that we already have some precedent in how we deal with "de facto" parents.
In the news video the victim-Mother indicates that she was advised she didn't need to adopt her non-biological child because the law in Vermont recognized her parental rights under her marriage. Since all states don't recognize that marriage, though, it might have been more prudent for her also to adopt the child.
Even for parents in more unusual arrangements that involve three parents, some jurisdictions are now allowing third-parent adoptions.
The takeaway point from this struggle should be that until the law becomes clear in how it treats these relationships documenting your rights and agreements should be clear from the outset. No matter what your family structure is like, if it is "non-traditional" the law might be uncertain in how it treats you or require more "proof" of parental relationship. In order to protect your parental rights you should explore your options when everyone is "getting along".
Labels: adoption, child custody, family law, gay marriage
Can I be sued for Divorce in Massachusetts if I don't live there but my spouse does?
If your spouse has lived in Massachusetts for one year or can establish that the breakdown of the marriage occurred in Massachusetts (as explained in a previous post) then they can obtain a divorce in Massachusetts. However, they will not be able to obtain personal jurisdiction over you and your property except in specific circumstances. In other words, Massachusetts can dissolve the marriage, but unless the Massachusetts courts can establish personal jurisdiction over you they cannot order you to transfer property that is outside Massachusetts or pay alimony.
Jurisdiction over the Dissolution of the Marriage
The United States Supreme Court in Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 (1942), decided that each State can determine the marital status of any spouse domiciled in that state, even if the other spouse is absent. Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942). In addition, the Court decided that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause that divorce decree must be honored in other states including the state where the other party lives. Id. at 299.
This means that if your spouse meets the requirements to obtain a divorce in Massachusetts then that Divorce Judgment ends your marriage legally in all states.
Having jurisdiction over the marital status of their residents, does not also extend to the property of out of state residents. In order for Massachusetts to have jurisdiction over the division of property outside the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Court must have jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant. Personal Jurisdiction can be accomplished in a number of ways other than residency but is limited to very specific circumstances. M.G.L. ch. 223A Section 3, commonly referred to as the "long-arm statute" describes these circumstances as follows:
"(a) transacting any business in this commonwealth;
(e) having an interest in, using or possessing real property in this commonwealth;
(f) contracting to insure any person, property or risk located within this commonwealth at the time of contracting;
(g) maintaining a domicile in this commonwealth while a party to a personal or marital relationship out of which arises a claim for divorce, alimony, property settlement, parentage of a child, child support or child custody; or the commission of any act giving rise to such a claim; or
(h) having been subject to the exercise of personal jurisdiction of a court of the commonwealth which has resulted in an order of alimony, custody, child support or property settlement, notwithstanding the subsequent departure of one of the original parties from the commonwealth, if the action involves modification of such order or orders and the moving party resides in the commonwealth, or if the action involves enforcement of such order notwithstanding the domicile of the moving party."
Under section (g), the determination of what is an "act giving rise to such a claim" has been defined rather broadly in two Massachusetts cases, Miller v. Miller, 448 Mass 320 (2007) and Cherin v. Cherin, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 288 (2008), and can include "an exchange of words between husband and wife" that "leads one or both of them to conclude the marriage is over" or engaging in "a persistent course of conduct, by committing various acts in Massachusetts, which created for the wife the impression that he would soon be moving to Massachusetts to retire with her, even though he secretly had no intention of actually doing so."
If you are concerned about whether or not you have committed any "acts" that might give rise to such a claim you should discuss your case with an attorney with experience in these types of cases.
Jurisdiction over the Person for Custody and Child Support Orders
Although the Court may not have jurisdiction over you for the purpose of ordering alimony or property division, if you have children with your spouse and those children now live in Massachusetts, Massachusetts may have jurisdiction over custody/visitation orders and child support orders.
After children live in Massachusetts for six (6) months, under the current law, Massachusetts obtains jurisdiction over any custody or visitation issues regardless of whether any previous custody orders exist (although the orders would be considered before any changes are made).
If a previous support order exists, Massachusetts may have jurisdiction over that order depending on the circumstances. If no previous support order exists then a Massachusetts Court may obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident to make support orders under much more lenient standards than in the long-arm statute above. This jurisdiction can be obtained under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) which has broad standards such as personally serving you within the Commonwealth or if you ever resided with the child in the Commonwealth, etc.
If you are concerned about whether or not Massachusetts may have jurisdiction over your case under UIFSA, you should discuss your case with an attorney with experience in these types of cases.
To schedule a one-hour Free consultation with Kelsey & Trask, P.C. click here or call (508) 655-5980.
Posted by Kelsey & Trask, P.C. at 10:51 AM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: alimony, child custody, child support, divorce, Jurisdiction
When a Tweet is a Threat
Following up on an earlier blog post discussing how contact through social networking websites, such as Facebook, may be an arrestable offense when there is an existing restraining order in effect, threats posted on social networking websites may also give rise to the issuing of a restraining order. In Arizona, an argument between two college students was escalated when one of the students wrote on his Twitter account that he would "not hesitate to punch [the other student] in the face if I saw him . . . Just sayin." The other student then obtained a restraining order because of the "tweet."
Regardless of whether the "tweet" was a legitimate threat, it is important to realize that writing something of that nature on a social networking website makes it possible that the individual to whom you are referring might read it, and might take it seriously. Be smart. Don't take your arguments to the internet. You are just documenting the "he-said-she-said," which could come back to haunt you.
Posted by Jonathan R. Eaton at 12:50 PM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: facebook, restraining orders, social networking, twitter
Posted by Jonathan R. Eaton at 5:11 PM 1 comment: Links to this post
Legal Differences Between Children Born to Married and Unmarried Parents
Last week, a colleague in North Carolina wrote about the different legal treatment in North Carolina between children born to married parents and "illegitimate" children (children not born to married parents -- many of our laws have not been updated since the dawn of the politically correct era, and label such children as "illegitimate" or "bastards," reflecting antiquated prejudices and stigmas against such children). The purpose of this post is to describe the ways treatment of such children in Massachusetts differs in some instances and is similar in others:
Illegitimate children may not inherit property from their father (except through a Last Will & Testament, voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, or an adjudication of paternity);
Illegitimate children are not eligible for survivor's Social Security Benefits as a result of the death of the child's father (42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A); M.G.L. c. 190 § 5);
Illegitimate children may sue for wrongful death of their deceased father (Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968));
In Massachusetts, the father of an illegitimate child may NOT have his parental rights terminated for the father's failure to legitimate the child (M.G.L. c. 119 § 26(4)) M.G.L. c. 210 § 3);
The father of an illegitimate child does not have the same notice rights in an adoption proceeding involving the illegitimate child, unless the father has been adjudicated to be the father, but even if he has not been so adjudicated he may still file a parental responsibility claim to obtain the same notice rights (M.G.L. c. 210 § 4A);
The birth certificate of a child who is legitimated will be changed to show the father's name (M.G.L. c. 46 § 13);
Procedures for the establishment of child support are abbreviated. If a child is born out of wedlock, child support is established in paternity proceedings. If a child is born to married parents, child support is established during divorce proceedings.
Additionally, in Massachusetts there is a difference in the treatment of child support between "illegitimate" children and children born of a marriage. For "illegitimate" children, child support may be sought from the time of the child's birth. For children born of a marriage, child support may only be sought in a divorce dating back to the date of filing or date or service of the complaint for divorce.
Posted by Jonathan R. Eaton at 5:31 PM 2 comments: Links to this post
Labels: bastards, illegitimate children, out of wedlock, paternity
With the rise in divorce rates over the past fifty years, many couples are approaching marriage with a lot more caution than past generations. Some couples are choosing to enter into agreements that, in the case that their marriage did end in divorce, would specify how to divide the assets between the spouses. These agreements are commonly called "prenuptial agreements," or "prenups," but are also known as antenuptial agreements. In Massachusetts, prenuptial agreements are valid so long as:
there is a full and fair disclosure of each individual's assets (you have to tell your soon-to-be spouse about everything that you have and vice-versa);
the agreement is considered fair and reasonable both at the time that the agreement is entered into and at the time of the divorce (you can't take everything and leave your spouse financially dependent on the state); and
there is no fraud or duress (you can't present a prenuptial agreement to your fiancée right before the wedding and say, "Sign this or we're not getting married.").
Additionally, courts look favorably on prenuptial agreements where both individuals are represented by their own attorneys.
Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recognized the validity of "postnuptial" or "marital agreements" as well. These "postnups" are very similar to "prenups," but are entered into after the individuals have been married. Reasons for entering into a "postnup" vary, but may make sense if one or both parties operate their own businesses and do not want to worry about the other spouse claiming an interest in the business if the parties were to get divorced.
Should you have any questions about "prenups" or "postnups," contact Attorney Justin L. Kelsey, or call 508.655.5980 to schedule an initial consultation.
Sources: M.G.L. c. 209 §25; §26; Ansin v. Craven-Ansin, 457 Mass. 283 (2010); and Osborne v. Osborne, 384 Mass. 591 (1981).
Posted by Jonathan R. Eaton at 5:22 PM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: antenuptial agreements, divorce, marital agreements, postnuptial agreements, premarital agreements, prenuptial agreements
Courts in Massachusetts are backed up, always have been backed up, and will presumably be backed up for the foreseeable future. Because of this, divorce cases can often take over a year to complete, and the time that is actually spent in court can feel rushed due to the number of other cases. All too often a decision is made by the court leaving one spouse feeling as if he or she did not get a chance to tell the full story.
Mediation provides an opportunity for divorcing spouses to discuss the process of their separation in a more personal and private forum than in a court room, often times saving the divorcing couple thousands of dollars by avoiding expensive litigation. Divorcing spouses are able to speak to one another in the presence of the mediator, and deal with issues that a court might not want to spend too much time on.
Attorney Justin Kelsey brings his experience as a family law attorney with him into mediation in order to provide divorcing spouses with useful feedback regarding the legal issues of divorce. If mediation is successful, both divorcing spouses can go to court with a separation agreement drafted by the attorneys at Kelsey & Trask, P.C. to be reviewed by the judge before entering it as a judgment. If you and your spouse have decided that you want a divorce, but would like the process to be handled carefully and privately without having to spend a fortune and put your life on hold for years as the court process plays out, or if you have any questions as to how divorce mediation works, call attorney Justin Kelsey to schedule a one-hour consultation at 508 655-5980.
Posted by Jonathan R. Eaton at 10:09 AM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: mediation, separation agreement
Does my Ex have a right to my inheritance if we get divorced? What is a Vaughan Affidavit?
The short answer is that Judges in Massachusetts can consider inheritance or potential inheritances when dividing property in Massachusetts. This does not mean that inheritances are split equally but they will play a part in how property is divided and may affect support orders as well. Whether an inheritance has been received or not can make a big difference in how it affects the division and support.
Inheritances Received During or Before the Marriage
"In addition to or in lieu of a judgment to pay alimony, the court may assign to either husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other, including but not limited to, all vested and nonvested benefits, rights and funds accrued during the marriage and which shall include, but not be limited to, retirement benefits, military retirement benefits if qualified under and to the extent provided by federal law, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred compensation and insurance."
This means that the Judge in a divorce case can consider how to divide all property that is in the name of either person, and this includes property that was inherited during or before the marriage. However, as part of the division, the Judges can consider the "contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of their respective estates..."
As an example, if a Husband received inherited property prior to the marriage, then the Wife likely didn't have anything to do with the acquisition. But if the inheritance was then placed in a joint account or used to purchase a marital home, then it is arguable that the Wife had a part in the preservation or appreciation of the asset. This is called "merging" an asset into the marital estate. If the Husband inherited property during the marriage, then it is also possible the Wife contributed to the acquisition if she, for example, had a good relationship with the deceased. These are the types of factors that will be taken into consideration in deciding what an "equitable" division of the inherited property would be.
Inheritances Likely to be Received After the Marriage
One of the factors that the Judges in Massachusetts must consider in dividing assets and determining alimony is the "the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income." This could include the possibility or likelihood of a future inheritance. Although inheritances aren't guaranteed because living relatives can change their wills before they die, the Court can consider how likely that is to happen, especially if the potential inheritance is significant.
In one case a party's parents objected to providing information about their estate plan arguing that because an expectancy of inheritance cannot be presently divided it should also not be discoverable. Vaughan v. Vaughan, SJC Single Justice, No. 91-485, p. 3 (1991) (unpublished).
The Single Justice in Vaughan held: "Although it is true that Allan's expectancy interests are not subject to division, a [probate court] judge, nevertheless, might properly take them into account in determining what disposition to make of the property which is subject to division."
Since the Vaughan case it has become common practice in a case where there is a potential inheritance for the relative to provide what is referred to as a Vaughan Affidavit describing in some detail the extent of their estate and their current estate plan. A properly completed Vaughan Affidavit should provide you with enough information to know whether a potential inheritance is significant enough to be considered by the Judge when determining the current division or support orders.
Posted by Kelsey & Trask, P.C. at 1:44 PM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: divorce, Divorce Spousal Support Calculator, m.g.l. 208 s34, Vaughan Affidavit
Can I Prevent my Ex from Moving Our Children if th...
What is a Parenting Plan? What is the best Parenti...
Could I be Forced to Pay Child Support for someone...
Dramatic Impact of Mediation on Children of Divorc...
Can I be sued for Divorce in Massachusetts if I do...