Source: https://nissenbaumhickey.com/public/Summaries/removal.shtml
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 02:03:02
Document Index: 748384118

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 30', '§ 28', '§ 30', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 30']

Divorce Judgement - Removal of Children- Voted Best Boston Divorce Lawyer and Best Family Lawyer
WARNING! THIS IS A DISCLAIMER! NOTHING ON THE WEB SITE IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE NATURE OF LEGAL ADVISE, NOR IS THE INFORMATION PROVIDED NECESSARILY UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE LATEST MASSACHUSETTS CASES OR CASES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS WHICH MAY EFFECT THEIR CASE. YOU MUST CONTACT THE LAWYERS AT NISSENBAUMHICKEY OR OR ANOTHER EXPERT IN FAMILY LAW IN ORDER TO SEEK INDIVIDUAL LEGAL ADVICE ABOUT YOUR CASE. VIII. Removal of the Children From the Commonwealth.
8.1 A minor child of divorced parents "shall not, if of suitable age to signify his consent, be removed out of this commonwealth without such consent, or, if under that age, without the consent of both parents, unless the court upon cause shown otherwise orders." G. L. c. 208, § 30.
8.3 Efforts by a custodial parent to relocate a child out of the Commonwealth often give rise to a claim for custody by the parent not seeking the move. See, e.g., Hersey v. Hersey , 271 Mass. 545 (1930); Usen v. Usen, 359 Mass. 453 (1971); Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704 (1985); Williams v. Pitney, 409 Mass. 449 (1991); Haas v. Puchalski, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 555 (1980); Signorelli v. Albano, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 939 (1985).
8.4 A G. L. c. 208, § 28 "request for modification of custody is distinct from a [G. L. c. 208, § 30] request to relocate and must be based on a material and substantial change in circumstances other than the move, is consistent with these decisions and with G. L. c. 208, § 28." Rosenthal v. Maney, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 257 (2001)
8.5 Unless the parties agree to the temporary change in physical custody, a judicially imposed change in custody is governed by G. L. c. 208, § 28A. Rosenthal v. Maney, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 257 (2001).
8.11 Changes occurring in a child’s living arrangements because of a temporary order that was not supported by findings of substantial and material change in circumstances, let alone the requisite findings of "injury, harm or damage," G. L. c. 208, § 28A, cannot form the basis upon which a final judgment modifying custody is granted. Were we to decide otherwise, tactical delays or overcrowded court dockets could come to dictate the result in every custody modification proceeding, and render meaningless any eventual hearing on the merits. Rosenthal v. Maney, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 257 (2001).
8.2 "The words "upon cause shown" in the controlling statute, G.L. c. 208, Section 30 ... have been interpreted to permit removal if in the best interests of the child." Hale v. Hale, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 812, 815 (1981) citing Rubin v. Rubin, 370 Mass. 857 (1976). 8.3 A request for removal is governed by G. L. c. 208, § 30 as that statute has been interpreted by Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704, 710 (1985) and Hale v. Hale, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 812, 815 (1981).
"the prospective advantages of the move in terms of its likely capacity for improving the general quality of life for both the custodial parent and the children;...the integrity of the motives of the custodial parent in seeking the move in order to determine whether the removal is inspired primarily by the desire to defeat or frustrate visitation by the non-custodial parent, and whether the custodial parent is likely to comply with substitute visitation orders... which can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship with the non-custodial parent if removal is allowed. The court should not insist that the advantages of the move be sacrificed...solely to maintain weekly visitation by the father. Hale at 818 (citing D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio, 144 N.J. Super. 200, 206-207, aff'd per curiam, 144 N.J. Super. 352 (1976).