Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Father Primary Physical Custody

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

R.K. v. R.M.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24-P-1101

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (20.3K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

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

24-P-1101

R.K.

vs.

R.M.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff and defendant-in-counterclaim (mother)

appeals from a corrected modification judgment entered in the

underlying divorce action. The main argument she raises is that

the Probate and Family Court judge erred in awarding primary

physical custody of the parties' minor child to the defendant

and plaintiff-in-counterclaim (father). We affirm.1

Background. The parties were divorced in May 2014. They

have one child together, who was born in March 2012. The

parties' separation agreement, which merged with the divorce

1The mother also appealed from an order of a single justice
of this court denying her motion to stay the corrected
modification judgment pending appeal, and the two appeals were
consolidated. She raises no separate argument as to the single
justice's order, however, and so we need not address it.
judgment, provided that the mother would have physical custody

of the child and that the parties would share legal custody.

In September 2015 the father filed a complaint for

modification seeking physical custody of the child and

termination of the father's child-support obligation to the

mother. This complaint resulted in a stipulation, signed in

August 2017, in which the parties agreed, among other things,

that the father would have physical custody of the child from

August 2017 until June 2018, that the child would live with the

father in Virginia starting August 14, 2017, and that the

parties would continue to share legal custody. A modification

judgment incorporating the stipulation entered in November 2017.

In January 2018 the father filed a petition for custody of

the child in the Virginia Juvenile and Domestic Relations

District Court (Virginia trial court). A few months later, the

father, then an active member of the military, was deployed

overseas for approximately one year. While he was deployed, the

Virginia trial court entered a temporary order granting the

mother physical custody of the child, and in July 2018 the child

returned to live with the mother in Massachusetts.

In January 2019 the Virginia trial court issued a final

judgment granting the father physical custody of the child. The

mother appealed to the Albemarle County Circuit Court (Virginia

2
appellate court). In July 2019, while the mother's appeal was

pending and after she returned the child to the father in

Virginia, she filed the underlying complaint for modification

seeking physical custody of the child and child support.

Although the judge initially dismissed the complaint on the

ground that Virginia had subject-matter jurisdiction, he vacated

the dismissal in September 2019 after the Virginia appellate

court allowed the mother's motion to dismiss the Virginia action

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

In October 2019 the father moved with the child to

Colorado. Although the mother agreed at the time that the child

should live with the father while the mother worked to secure

stable housing, the father did not tell the mother that he and

the child had moved to Colorado. The judge too was not aware

that the father had removed the child to Colorado until late

2020, when a pretrial hearing was held on the mother's complaint

for modification. Following that hearing the judge issued an

order in December 2020 in which he concluded that the father had

failed to make an appropriate request to remove the child to

Colorado and that, as a matter of law, the child had to be

returned to his home state of Massachusetts pending final

resolution of the mother's complaint. The child then returned

to the mother's custody on or around December 31, 2020.

3
In July 2021 the father filed a counterclaim seeking

physical custody of the child so that the child could live with

the father, his wife, and their two children in Colorado. Trial

on the mother's complaint and the father's counterclaim was held

over four days in July, September, and November 2023. Both

parties testified, as did several other witnesses, and twenty-

three exhibits were entered in evidence. The judge then issued

a detailed written decision concluding, among other things, that

a material and substantial change in circumstances warranting

modification had occurred and that it would be in the child's

best interests to live with the father in Colorado. A corrected

modification judgment entered in accordance with the judge's

decision on June 14, 2024, nunc pro tunc to June 12, 2024.

Relevant to this appeal, the judgment provides that the father

shall have primary physical custody of the child and that the

parties shall have joint legal custody, "but if the parties are

unable to agree on educational, medical, religious, or extra-

curricular activity decisions, [the] [f]ather shall have final

say" so long as he gives the mother seventy-two hours "to add

her input on the decision."

Additional facts are set out below as they become relevant

to our analysis.

4
Discussion. The mother argues on appeal that the judge

erred by failing to make an express finding of a material change

in circumstances; that for numerous reasons the judge erred in

finding that it would be in the child's best interests to live

with the father in Colorado; and that the judge erred in

purporting to maintain joint legal custody while giving the

father the "final say" if the parties are unable to agree. We

address these arguments in turn.

1. Material and substantial change in circumstances.

Under G. L. c. 208, § 28, a judge may modify an "earlier

judgment as to the care and custody of . . . minor children

. . . provided that the [judge] finds that a material and

substantial change in the circumstances of the parties has

occurred and the judgment of modification is necessary in the

best interests of the children." Here, the judge expressly

found that, since entry of the modification judgment in November

2017, "there ha[d] been significant changes in the lives of the

parties and [the child]," including the father's move to

Colorado, retirement from active duty, and new employment in "a

nondeployable position," the mother's "housing instability," and

the child's "many emotional, mental, and physical challenges."

The judge also made an express finding that modification of the

November 2017 judgment would be in the child's best interests.

5
Thus, contrary to the mother's argument, the judge made the

findings required by the statute.

We disagree with the mother's assertion that the judge

erred by failing to "explicitly identify what changed since the

December 2020 order." As an initial matter, the relevant point

in time for purposes of determining whether a material and

substantial change occurred is November 2017, i.e., when the

"earlier judgment as to the care and custody of" the child

entered. G. L. c. 208, § 28. The December 2020 order was not

incorporated into a judgment, but was a temporary order issued

pending trial on the merits. In any event, as discussed below,

the judge made detailed findings showing how the child's

circumstances had changed since he returned to the mother's care

pursuant to the December 2020 order. Thus, even were we to

consider only what happened after that date, we would conclude

that the judge's findings still demonstrate that a material and

substantial change had occurred.

1. Best interests of child. "The determination of which

parent will promote a child's best interests rests within the

discretion of the judge . . . [whose] findings in a custody case

must stand unless they are plainly wrong" (quotations and

citations omitted). Custody of Kali, 439 Mass. 834, 845 (2003).

In this case the judge concluded that it would be in the child's

6
best interests to live with the father because the evidence

showed that the mother failed to act in the child's best

interests during the time he was in the mother's custody

pursuant to the December 2020 order. This conclusion is

supported by detailed factual findings, unchallenged by the

mother on appeal, establishing that the mother regularly failed

to give the child his prescribed medications for attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and depression,

subjecting him to "cycle[s]" of dysregulation, involvement by

the Department of Children and Families (DCF), and

hospitalizations. For example, in December 2021, after school

staff isolated the child to keep him from running away, he tried

to harm himself and was admitted to a hospital for one week. On

another occasion in May 2023, the child destroyed objects in the

school guidance counselor's office, ran down the halls, sprayed

cleaning chemicals into the faces of school staff, and then ran

down the street. The child was suspended as a result of this

incident. In addition, the child had forty-five absences during

the 2022-2023 school year and struggled academically. Although

the mother repeatedly claimed to DCF that the child became

dysregulated because of visits with the father, the judge found

that his dysregulation was in fact caused by the mother's use of

physical discipline, the child's "further fear of [the]

7
[m]other's actions after he speaks with DCF," and the mother's

failure to give the child his medications.

Based on these uncontested findings, the judge justifiably

concluded that the child's best interests would be served if the

father had physical custody of him. In contrast to the mother's

inadequate care of the child, the judge found that the father

and his wife "provided [the child] with all he needs to thrive"

while he was in their custody and would continue to do so. The

judge thus determined that it would be in the child's best

interests for him to move to Colorado to live with the father

and his family. This was well within the judge's discretion.

See Custody of Kali, 439 Mass. at 845.

In arguing otherwise, the mother raises a number of

challenges to the judge's weighing and crediting of the

evidence. For example, she claims that the judge did not

adequately consider evidence that the father committed acts of

"coercive control," such as moving to Colorado without telling

the mother and thereby isolating the child from her for one

year. She further claims that the judge's best interests

determination is contrary to evidence that she provided the

child with stability for nine years and obtained professional

services for him immediately upon his return to Massachusetts

from Colorado. It was the judge's role, however, to assess the

8
credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and determine

the best interests of the child. See Custody of Kali, 439 Mass.

at 845-848; E.K. v. S.C., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 403, 412-413 (2020).

The judge's findings reflect that he considered all the relevant

circumstances before him, citing evidence that was positive to

the mother as well as evidence that was negative to the father,

and we see no basis to disturb his determination. To the extent

the mother argues that the judge erred in permitting removal of

the child from Massachusetts, we are unpersuaded. The judge

found that the father's purpose for moving to Colorado was not

to interfere with the mother's relationship with the child, that

the father has roots in his Colorado community, and that there

is a "real advantage" to his living there. These findings were

sufficient to support the order of removal. See E.K., supra at

410-411 (before transferring physical custody to out-of-State

parent, judge "must find that the intent of the move was not to

interfere with the in-State parent's relationship with the

child, and was not designed to establish a basis to request a

change in physical custody" and that move provided "real

advantage" to out-of-State parent).

1. Legal custody. Neither party sought a modification

regarding legal custody of the child. The judge thus maintained

the parties' joint legal custody but, noting their "extensive

9
history of disagreements," concluded that it would be in the

child's best interests for the father to have the "final say" in

the event of future disagreements. The mother argues on appeal

that this was an abuse of discretion because giving the father

the "final say" renders her custodial status meaningless. We

disagree. The judge's order of joint legal custody gives the

mother the right to be involved in major decisions regarding the

child's welfare. See Mason v. Coleman, 447 Mass. 177, 181-182

(2006). The father thus cannot act unilaterally, as the mother

claims. Even as to matters where there is disagreement, the

judge's order prevents the father from making any decisions

without giving the mother at least seventy-two hours to provide

her input. We discern no abuse of discretion.

Conclusion. The corrected modification judgment entered

June 14, 2024, is affirmed. The order of the single justice

10
dated August 16, 2024, denying the mother's motion for a stay

pending appeal is affirmed.2

So ordered.

By the Court (Henry, Shin &
Toone, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: April 24, 2026.

2 The father's request for appellate attorney's fees is
denied, as he fails to specify a basis therefor.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

11