Leon v. Cormier (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-032-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 16-P-61 Appeals Court NORBERTO A.Y. LEON vs. JESSICA S. CORMIER. No. 16-P-61. Suffolk. November 17, 2016. – March 24, 2017. Present: Hanlon, Sullivan, & Blake, JJ. Divorce and Separation, Parent coordinator. Contempt. Evidence, Refusal to comply with court order. Complaint for divorce filed in the Suffolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on September 7, 2011. Complaints for contempt, filed on January 2, 2015, were heard by Abbe L. Ross, J., and motions for relief from judgment were considered by her. Peter A. Kuperstein (Mary Donahue also present) for the mother. Norberto A.Y. Leon, pro se. HANLON, J. A judge of the Probate and Family Court held the mother, Jessica Cormier, in civil contempt for violations of a decision issued by an agreed-upon parent coordinator. Cormier appeals, arguing that the parent coordinator’s decision was not an order or judgment of the court and therefore cannot be enforced by a finding of contempt. After review, we conclude that, at least under the circumstances of this case, the parent coordinator’s decision was, in fact, an order of the court pursuant to the judgment of divorce nisi; we therefore affirm. Background. On November 20, 2012, the parties executed a separation agreement which was incorporated in the corrected judgment of divorce nisi on December 7, 2012, as of November 20, 2012. According to the judgment, the terms of the agreement were given the “full force and effect of an order of [the] [c]ourt.” The agreement provided, among other things, that “[t]he parties may modify the parenting plan by agreement” and, in so doing, agree to use the services of a mutually selected parent coordinator to assist them if they are “unable to agree on any matter related to the parenting plan[,] including educational changes.”[1] The parties also agreed in advance that the decisions of the parent coordinator “[would] be binding on the parties unless altered, modified or terminated by [c]ourt order.” Thereafter, following a series of disputes about several things, including the location where the children were to be picked up and dropped off during custody exchanges, the parties agreed to use the services of the mutually selected parent coordinator. On December 21, 2013, the parent coordinator sent an electronic mail (e-mail) message to the parties, clarifying a […]