Mason v. Coleman
850 N.E.2d 513, 447 Mass. 177, 2006 Mass. LEXIS 441 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When parents share joint physical custody, a parent seeking to remove a child from the Commonwealth must demonstrate that the proposed move serves the child's best interests. This standard requires a comprehensive analysis of the child's welfare, without giving special consideration or presumptive weight to the interests of the moving parent.
Facts:
- James R. Mason (father) and Betsy Shanley Coleman (mother) divorced in New Hampshire in 1998, entering into a joint physical and legal custody agreement for their two children, born in 1992 and 1994.
- Under their agreement, they shared physical custody approximately equally and agreed to live within twenty-five miles of Chelmsford, Massachusetts.
- Both parents remarried and lived in the Chelmsford area.
- In 2002, the older child was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and was succeeding in the Chelmsford school system, which had established an effective support system for him.
- The father relocated to Nashua, New Hampshire, approximately seventeen miles from Chelmsford.
- Weeks later, the mother announced her intent to relocate with the children to Bristol, New Hampshire, to live near her parents and to join her new husband who was also moving there.
- The school system in Bristol was found to be of lower quality than Chelmsford's, particularly concerning the resources available for the child with special needs.
- The father refused to consent to the children's removal from the Commonwealth.
Procedural Posture:
- James R. Mason (father) filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court seeking modification of the divorce decree and an injunction to prevent Betsy Shanley Coleman (mother) from removing the children from the Commonwealth.
- The mother filed a counterclaim seeking permission to relocate to New Hampshire.
- The probate judge issued a temporary order enjoining the mother from removing the children.
- After a four-day trial, the probate judge issued a final judgment denying the mother's request for removal, finding it was not in the children's best interests, and ordered shared physical and legal custody to continue.
- The mother appealed the judgment of the Probate and Family Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court for direct review on its own motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under G.L. c. 208, § 30, is a parent with joint physical custody who seeks to remove a child from the Commonwealth required to prove that the move is in the child's best interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowin, J.
Yes. A parent with joint physical custody seeking to remove a child from the Commonwealth must demonstrate that the proposed move is in the child's best interests. The court held that the standard for relocation in a joint physical custody arrangement is fundamentally different from that in a sole custody situation. Unlike sole custody cases where a court considers the 'real advantage' to the moving parent, in joint custody cases the analysis is a straightforward 'best interests of the child' test. The court reasoned that in a true joint custody arrangement, both parents are primary to the child's development, and the child's interests typically favor protecting the relationship with both parents. Therefore, each parent in a joint custody agreement necessarily surrenders some personal prerogatives, such as the freedom to relocate, to maintain the viability of the shared parenting plan. The court affirmed the probate judge's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the determination that the move to New Hampshire was not in the children's best interests due to the disruption it would cause, the superiority of the current school system for the child with special needs, and the negative impact on the children's relationship with their father.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a distinct and stricter legal standard for parental relocation cases involving joint physical custody in Massachusetts. It explicitly rejects the application of the 'real advantage' test from sole custody cases, which often favors the moving parent's interests. By requiring a pure 'best interests of the child' analysis, the court makes it significantly more difficult for a parent in a shared custody arrangement to relocate with the children against the other parent's wishes. This precedent shifts the judicial focus away from the relocating parent's justification and squarely onto the child's stability and the preservation of the child's relationship with both primary caregivers.
Unlock the full brief for Mason v. Coleman