K.A. v. T.R. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-139-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 13-P-108 Appeals Court K.A. vs. T.R.[1] No. 13-P-108. Norfolk. April 9, 2014. – October 31, 2014. Present: Vuono, Meade, & Carhart, JJ. Parent and Child, Custody. Divorce and Separation, Child custody, Findings. Evidence, Child custody proceeding. Probate Court, Custody of child. Practice, Civil, Contempt. Complaint for divorce filed in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on April 16, 2010. The case was heard by John D. Casey, J. Michael J. Traft for the mother. VUONO, J. Cases concerning the custody of children are often difficult and emotionally charged, and may be rendered even more complex when domestic violence is involved. This appeal presents us with such a case. Following a five-day trial on a complaint for divorce filed by K.A. (the former husband; hereinafter, the father), a Probate and Family Court judge concluded that although the father had engaged in a pattern of abuse towards T.R. (the former wife; hereinafter, the mother) within the meaning of G. L. c. 208, § 31A, it was in the best interests of the parties’ children that their primary physical custody be with the father, with substantial parenting time for the mother. The mother has appealed from the custody orders in the amended judgment of divorce.[2] She also has appealed from those provisions of the amended judgment that adjudicated her complaints for contempt. While we are sensitive and sympathetic to the mother’s position, for the reasons that follow, we affirm the amended judgment. 1. Procedural history. We recite the lengthy procedural history in detail as it informs our discussion of the issues. On April 16, 2010, the father filed a complaint for divorce and, claiming that the parties’ two minor children were at risk, an ex parte motion, supported by affidavit, requesting that the mother be required to vacate the marital home and that he be given temporary legal and physical custody of the children. The motion was allowed, and a temporary order granted the father the relief he requested. Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation, incorporated in a court order, in which they agreed to joint legal and physical custody of the children, and that the mother was to have sole and exclusive use of the marital home. A guardian ad litem (GAL) subsequently was appointed to investigate and to […]