Cohen v. Cohen (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-027-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC-11594 M. DAVID COHEN vs. SHELLEY COHEN. Middlesex. October 9, 2014. – February 23, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Contempt. Divorce and Separation, Foreign judgment, Child support, Attorney’s fees. Probate Court, Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, Child support, Probate Court. Parent and Child, Child support. Registration for enforcement of a foreign order of support filed in the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on March 31, 2004. A complaint for contempt was heard by Randy J. Kaplan, J. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Anna S. Richardson for the father. DUFFLY, J. This case requires that we resolve the extent to which the Probate and Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction to enforce or modify a support order issued by a California court in connection with proceedings dissolving the marriage of M. David Cohen (father) and Shelley Cohen (mother). After the parties separated in 1999, a Los Angeles County Superior Court entered a judgment establishing monthly child and spousal support payments payable by the father to the mother. The father moved to Massachusetts in 2002. In 2004, the California support order was registered in the Probate and Family Court, upon request of the Los Angeles County Department of Child Services (California CSSD). Pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), which has been adopted by both California and Massachusetts, Massachusetts courts thus acquired jurisdiction to enforce the support order. See Cal. Fam. Code, §§ 4900, 4950, 4951 (West 2013); G. L. c. 209D, §§ 6-601, 6-602. The child support division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR), acting on behalf of the mother, initiated contempt proceedings against the father in the Probate and Family Court, and a Probate and Family Court judge subsequently issued multiple orders that sought to enforce the California support order. The orders incorporated the parties’ stipulated agreements, which, inter alia, obligated the father to pay the child’s uninsured medical expenses and to contribute to her college education costs; neither of these items had been included in the order of the California court. In 2010, a Probate and Family Court judge found the father in contempt for having failed to make payments in the amounts […]