Rosenwasser v. Rosenwasser (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-071-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-1601                                       Appeals Court   MARCI ROSENWASSER  vs.  RONALD ROSENWASSER.      No. 14-P-1601. Middlesex.     January 25, 2016. – June 17, 2016.   Present:  Cohen, Trainor, & Katzmann, JJ. Divorce and Separation, Child custody, Child support, Alimony, Modification of judgment, Separation agreement.  Minor, Custody.  Parent and Child, Custody, Child support.       Complaint for divorce filed in the Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on June 16, 2010.   An amended complaint for modification, filed on August 28, 2012, was heard by Patricia A. Gorman, J.     Susan E. Stenger for the father. Donald G. Tye (Michelle M. Rothman with him) for the mother.     KATZMANN, J.  Ronald Rosenwasser (father), the former husband of Marci Rosenwasser (mother), appeals from a modification judgment of the Probate and Family Court denying his request to remove the parties’ minor child to Boca Raton, Florida.  As the father is the child’s primary custodial parent, his removal request is governed by the two-prong “real advantage” test set forth in Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704 (1985) (Yannas).  Though we credit the judge’s efforts to deal with a complex situation involving two loving parents, we conclude that the judge erred in her application of the second prong of the Yannas test, by not adequately considering the best interests of the child and the interests of the father, while giving undue weight to the interests of the mother.  We therefore vacate the portion of the modification judgment denying the father’s removal request and remand the matter to the Probate and Family Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The mother also cross-appeals from the portion of the modification judgment reducing the father’s support obligation.  We vacate the portion of the modification judgment pertaining to support and remand the matter for additional findings consistent with this opinion. 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.”  Murray v. Super, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 146, 147 (2015) (Murray).  The parties married in March, 1990, and lived together in Florida until 1997, when they relocated to Massachusetts.  The father grew up in Florida, and much of his extended family still lives there.  The mother’s parents, who are Canadian citizens, also live […]

Read more...