Schechter v. Schechter (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-135-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 13-P-1035 Appeals Court KARINA SCHECHTER vs. YAN SCHECHTER (and a companion case[1]). No. 13-P-1035. Suffolk. September 9, 2014. – September 9, 2015. Present: Rapoza, C.J., Carhart, & Agnes, JJ.[2] Divorce and Separation, Child custody, Modification of judgment, Findings, Visitation, Attorney’s fees. Parent and Child, Custody. Minor, Custody, Guardian ad litem, Visitation rights. Abuse Prevention. Contract, Antenuptial agreement. Husband and Wife, Antenuptial agreement. Practice, Civil, Attorney’s fees. Complaints for divorce and for protection from abuse filed in the Suffolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on June 8, 2009, and September 14, 2009, respectively. After consolidation, the cases were heard by John M. Smoot, J. Lawrence F. Army, Jr. (William S. Smith with him) for the father. Alanna G. Cline for the mother. Jerome Aaron, for National Parents Organization, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. AGNES, J. These are consolidated appeals by the defendant Yan Schechter (the father) from a judgment of divorce nisi and an abuse prevention order. One child, a son who is still a minor (the child), was born of the marriage. The judgment awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child to the plaintiff Karina Schechter (the mother). The father’s appeal presents four principal issues for our consideration. First, we review the custody determination and the validity of a judgment provision suspending the father’s visitation rights for one year, along with a corresponding G. L. c. 209A order precluding any contact between the father and child during that period. Second, we review the judgment’s removal provision (see G. L. c. 208, § 30), which provides that the mother has the right to remove the child “from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the state of New York or another state if the opportunity for employment and security is more readily available elsewhere.” Third, we review the judge’s determination that the parties’ prenuptial agreement was not “fair and reasonable” at the time of its execution and was thus not valid. Finally, we consider the judge’s award of attorney’s fees to the mother. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judge’s orders relating to custody and visitation, the invalidity of the prenuptial agreement, and attorney’s fees, but conclude that the removal provision was not in compliance with G. L. c. 208, § 30, and that the issue must be reconsidered after an evidentiary […]