Murray v. Super (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-022-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 14-P-518 Appeals Court DAWN MICHELLE MURRAY vs. JONATHAN S. SUPER. No. 14-P-518. Worcester. December 2, 2014. – March 16, 2015. Present: Cypher, Wolohojian, & Blake, JJ. Divorce and Separation, Child custody, Child support, Modification of judgment. Minor, Custody. Parent and Child, Custody, Child support. Complaint for divorce filed in the Worcester Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on January 30, 2009. After consolidation, complaints for modification, filed on July 10, 2012, and October 2, 2013, were heard by Lucille A. DiLeo, J. Nicholas J. Plante for the mother. Christine D. Anthony for the father. BLAKE, J. The mother, Dawn Michelle Murray, appeals from a judgment of the Probate and Family Court dismissing her complaint for modification, which sought to remove the minor children of the marriage to the State of California. Where the parent seeking to move has primary physical custody of the children, the standard governing removal of the minor children from the Commonwealth requires a determination of whether there is a real advantage to the custodial parent and consideration of the best interests of the children and the interests of both parents. See Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704, 710-711 (1985) (Yannas). Where the real advantage to the custodial parent is at odds with the best interests of the children, the children’s interests are paramount. Concluding that the judge below did not err in placing the interests of the children first, we affirm that part of the judgment denying the mother’s request to remove the children to California. The mother also appeals from that portion of the judgment reducing the child support obligation of the father, Jonathan S. Super.[1] We vacate the portion of the judgment related to child support and remand the matter for additional findings on that issue. Background. We summarize the proceedings, setting forth relevant background facts as determined by the judge, supplemented by the record where necessary, and reserving other facts for our later discussion of the issues. The parties were divorced by judgment of divorce nisi on October 24, 2011, after a contested trial. The divorce judgment provided, in pertinent part, that the parties would share legal custody of their three minor children,[2] with the mother having “primary physical custody” and the father having parenting time. When the children are not in […]