USA – MASSACHUSETTS Law and Practice Contributed by: Mary H. Schmidt, Rachel A. Deering, Hannah R. Zukoff and Mariah G. Tappan, Verrill Dana, LLP
the child and the left-behind parent to maintain a meaningful relationship. In Dickenson v Cogswell , the Trial Court denied a mother’s request to relocate with her ten-year-old son because the proposed visita - tion schedule was impracticable and unreasonable, requiring the child to take frequent overnight flights across the country. ( Dickenson v Cogswell , 66 Mass. App. Ct. 442 (2006).) The Trial Court further justified their denial of relocation based on the closeness of the child’s relationship with his father. (Id.) The father was intimately involved in the child’s day-to-day life, taking the child to school and coaching his sporting teams. The father and the child’s relationship would change drastically should the removal be allowed, negatively impacting the child’s emotional, physical and devel - opmental needs. (Id.) Conversely, in Rosenwasser v Rossenwasser , the court addressed the weight that should be given to a child and a left-behind parent’s relationship when the left-behind parent has been largely absent from the child’s life. ( Rosenwasser v Rosenwasser , 89 Mass. App. Ct. 577 (2016).) The Appellate Court in Rosen- wasser reversed the Trial Court’s denial of a relocation, reasoning that the Trial Court had placed dispropor - tionate weight on the effect the move would have on the noncustodial mother’s relationship with the child. (Id.) In Rosenwasser , it was undisputed that the non - custodial mother had missed the majority of her par - enting time during the two years leading up to the trial and, therefore, disruption in visitation with the non - custodial parent cannot be a controlling factor. (Id.) Said otherwise, a court is likely to give significantly more weight to the relationship between a left-behind parent who has been closely involved in a child’s life versus a parent who has been largely absent. 2.3.6 Which Reasons for Relocation Are Viewed Most Favourably? The most significant factors, or those that the court may appear most sympathetic towards, depend largely on the custodial arrangement. For example, when parents share physical custody and exercise an approximately equal parenting schedule, the court will give far greater weight to the relationship between the child and the left-behind parent versus a scenar - io where one parent has primary physical custody. Additionally, when parents share physical custody
and exercise an approximately equal parenting plan, the importance of the relocating parent’s advantages in moving becomes greatly reduced. With that being said, the paramount and overarching inquiry remains the same – what is in the best interests of the child or children involved? Any court determining the outcome of a relocation petition must consider all factors col - lectively, as no single factor is controlling. 2.3.7 Grounds for Opposition to Relocation See previous sections. 2.3.8 Costs of an Application for Relocation Relocation matters are regrettably among the most expensive family law cases to prepare and try. The court’s decision depends upon a careful examination of nearly every aspect of the child’s and the parties’ lives, requiring extensive discovery, document review, witness preparation, motion practice, and trial prepa - ration. As a result, these cases demand a substantial investment of attorney time from the outset through trial. In Massachusetts, it is not uncommon for the legal fees associated with a contested relocation trial to exceed USD200,000, exclusive of expert fees. The retention of experts can increase the overall cost con - siderably, depending upon the issues presented. 2.3.9 Time Taken by an Application for Relocation The speed at which a relocation case proceeds depends largely on whether there are circumstances requiring the court to reach a decision on an expedit - ed basis. Examples include a time-sensitive employ - ment opportunity, the start of a new school year, the impending loss of housing, or other circumstances affecting the child’s welfare or the practicality of the proposed move. Even when a case is expedited, one should expect at least 12 months to elapse between the commencement of the proceeding and the court’s decision. In the absence of circumstances warranting expedited treatment, the process can take closer to two years from filing to the issuance of a decision. 2.3.10 Primary Caregivers Versus Left-Behind Parents Massachusetts courts do not favour either the relo - cating parent or the left-behind parent. Rather, the
184 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook