The current legal standard under Yannas was founded upon two
assumptions: 1) that relocation occurred within the context of the larger
disruption of divorce; and 2) that it was the mother who provided the child's
quality of life. Changes in how families actually operate require that both of
those assumptions be interrogated. Considerable social science literature since
Yannas has focused on fathers and on nonresidential parents (those
terms are still often coterminous). In addition, respected social science
research has effectively distinguished the effects of relocation from the
effects of divorce generally.
The practitioner representing the stay-behind parent has tools that didn't
exist 25 years ago. But are they adequate to challenge the legal standard in
Massachusetts? Are trial courts having increasing difficulty applying the
standard to the particular families coming before them? Are courts seeing more
or less removal litigation? Do removal cases create a wider than usual gulf
between the fact-based decisions of the trial court and the legal analysis of
the appeals court? Would families be better served by moving to a Mason
standard? Topics include:
- The different legal standards that apply to removal cases in
Massachusetts;
- Review of cases since 2006 when Mason v. Coleman was decided;
- Overview of relevant social science research;
- How trial counsel can use psychological experts; and
- What counsel needs to know when appealing a judgment in a removal
case.
Co-sponsors:
Massachusetts Association of Guardians Ad Litem Inc. and the Association of
Family and Conciliation Courts
Faculty:Jo Ann Citron, Esq., program chair
Citron Law, Newton Upper Falls
Hon. E. Choteau Levine
Levine Dispute Resolution Center, LLC, Westwood
Andrew Clark, M.D.
Medical Director, Children and the Law Program at Massachusetts General Hospital
Sponsoring Sections: Family Law Section
The Sole Practitioner and Small Firm Section