Moving Your Child to a Different State? What Divorced Parents in Massachusetts Need to Know

Even when a parent has primary physical custody of a child, that is the child lives with that parent most of the time, that does not mean the parent has the unilateral authority to move with the child out of state. To the contrary, when one parent seeks to relocate a child without the other parent’s consent, a Massachusetts judge must decide whether such relocation is ultimately in the child’s best interest.

There is actually a two-step process followed by Massachusetts courts. First, the court must determine if there is a “real advantage” to the relocation. This requires the parent seeking relocation to demonstrate they have a “good, sincere reason” for making the move, as opposed to simply wanting to keep the child away from the other parent. Even if the parent can satisfy the real advantage test, however, the judge must then determine if the relocation is ultimately in the child’s best interest. If there is ultimately a conflict between the real advantage to the parent and the child’s best interest, the latter must prevail.

Judge Denies Mother’s Request to Relocate Child from MA to Alaska

A recent decision from the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Shkolnikov v. Cohen, illustrates how courts apply this process to a real-world situation. This case involved two unmarried parents of a minor child. In 2016, the parents reached a voluntary agreement regarding custody, which was later approved by a Massachusetts judge. The agreement provided the mother would have primary physical custody with regularly scheduled parenting time for the father.

Six years later, the mother married an active duty member of the United States Army. The Army subsequently reassigned the husband from Massachusetts to Alaska. Consequently, the mother filed a petition seeking permission to relocate with the child to Alaska and adopt a modified parenting time plan. The child’s father opposed the petition.

Following a two-day trial, a Massachusetts judge denied the mother’s petition for relocation. The court found that the mother demonstrated a “real advantage” to relocation, i.e., allowing the mother to live with both her husband and child. But removal would not be in the child’s best interests “because it would be detrimental to the relationship between the child and the father,” as well as separating the child from his other relatives, friends, and regular activities.

The Appeals Court upheld the judge’s ruling. The Appeals Court noted that a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the child and a psychologist who examined the child both agreed that moving the child to Alaska would “allow the mother to further warp the child’s view of the father.” which would sever the current positive relationship between father and child. The trial judge also found the mother’s proposed amended parenting plan was “totally impractical” given the time and expense it would take for the father to regularly travel between Massachusetts and Alaska.

Contact a Peabody Child Custody Lawyer Today

It is always best for parents to try and resolve custody issues outside of court. But there are situations where the interests of the parents conflict to the point where judicial resolution is necessary. If you need legal advice or representation from a qualified Peabody child custody attorney, contact Reade Law Firm, PC, today at 978-767-8383 to schedule a consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5233981493131523568