USA – MASSACHUSETTS Law and Practice Contributed by: Mary H. Schmidt, Rachel A. Deering, Hannah R. Zukoff and Mariah G. Tappan, Verrill Dana, LLP
court applies the applicable legal standard which is governed by the parties’ custodial arrangement and resolves the matter according to the child’s best inter - ests. The touchstone cases are Mason v Coleman , 447 Mass. 177, 183–84 (2006), and Yannas v Frondis- tou - Yannas , 395 Mass. 704 (1985). Under the Mason standard, which applies when the parties share cus - todial responsibility for a child, the court conducts a best interests analysis focused on the particular needs and circumstances of the child. By contrast, under the Yannas standard, which applies when one par - ent has primary or greater custodial responsibility, the court employs a two-part “real advantage” analysis, first determining whether the parent seeking reloca - tion has demonstrated a good-faith real advantage for the proposed move and, if so, balancing the interests of the custodial parent, the child, and the noncustodial parent to determine whether the relocation should be permitted. The applicable legal standard can, and typically does, significantly affect the outcome. Where the relocating parent has sole or primary physical custody, Massa - chusetts law affords considerable deference to that parent’s reasonable request to relocate, recognising that the interests of the custodial parent and child are often closely intertwined. Consequently, provided the proposed relocation is made in good faith, is not sought to deprive the other parent of parenting time with the child, and serves a legitimate purpose, the custodial parent is generally more likely to obtain per - mission to relocate than a parent seeking relocation under a joint physical custody arrangement. By contrast, where the parties share joint physical cus - tody, neither parent occupies in a more advantageous legal position than the other. Instead, the court con - ducts a broader best interests analysis that carefully weighs the competing interests of both parents and the child, placing particular emphasis on preserving the child’s meaningful relationship with each parent. 2.4 Relocation Within a Jurisdiction The analysis does not change depending upon whether the proposed relocation is to a nearby loca - tion, another part of Massachusetts, or a greater dis - tance. The governing legal standard remains the same and continues to depend upon the parties’ custodial
arrangement rather than state or municipal bounda - ries. A relocation to an adjoining state is not subject to a dif - ferent legal standard simply because it crosses a state line, nor is a move within Massachusetts analysed differently simply because of the distance involved (although a move to a nearby town within Massachu - setts would not require the permission of the other parent or the court, whereas a significant relocation within the state would). Rather, the court focuses on the practical impact of the proposed relocation on the child and the existing parenting arrangement. To be sure, an international relocation or a move requiring air travel presents practical considerations that are not implicated by a relocation to a location an hour away by car. Those considerations may affect the court’s analysis of the child’s best interests, but they do not alter the governing legal standard. Having said that, any practitioner would be remiss not to acknowledge the practical realities of relocation. It is generally easier to justify a move 90 minutes away than one requiring a 19-hour flight to the other side of the world. The impact of travel on the child, the feasibility of maintaining the child’s relationship with the left-behind parent, the cost of transportation, and the logistics of parenting time become increasingly significant as the distance grows. Those are all factors the court will consider. Conversely, where the proposed move is nearby, or even to a neighbouring state within driving distance, preserving regular and frequent contact between the child and the left-behind parent is often far more achievable. Although the governing legal standard remains unchanged, the practical considerations informing the court’s best interests analysis neces - sarily differ depending upon the distance involved and the effect the relocation will have on the child’s rela - tionship with the non-relocating parent.
185 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook