Consequences of Incivility in Child Custody Cases

The Appeals Court decision of Howard v. Howard underscores the significance of effective co-parenting and civility during custody disputes. In this case, the parties continued to live together in the marital home with their four children following the Mother’s filing for divorce. The Father, in response to the Mother’s filing for divorce, became “hostile” and “abusive” in his communications with her and refused to comply with the shared parenting schedule the parties had agreed to, which eventually resulted in the issuance of a 209A Abuse Prevention Order against the Father. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the Mother’s relationship with the parties’ teenage boys began to deteriorate, and they became increasingly combative in their interactions with her. As the Mother was worried about exposing the parties’ daughters to the conflict between her and their two brothers, she had little parenting time with teenage boys in the months prior to trial.

At trial, legal and physical custody were disputed. The Father proposed a shared legal custody arrangement and sought primary physical custody of the teenage boys in light of their newfound resentment toward Mother. The Probate Court instead found that the teenage boys’ animosity toward the Mother was caused by the Father and was the result of, inter alia, his expressing his anger about the Mother to them and involving them in the parties’ conflict. The Probate Court found that the Father had intentionally interfered with the Mother’s relationship with the teenage boys, and that the Father refused to communicate respectfully and cooperatively throughout the litigation. As such, it awarded the Mother primary physical custody of the girls, shared physical custody of the boys and sole legal custody of all the parties’ children.

On appeal, the Father challenged the Probate Court’s Judgment to make the Mother sole legal custodian. However, the Court disagreed with his argument that the award was an abuse of discretion, as the Probate Court Judge’s findings clearly demonstrated that shared legal custody would be unworkable given the Father’s demonstrated unwillingness to communicate respectfully and work cooperatively with the Mother. As a result, the Court held that the Mother was more capable than the Father of making decisions that promoted the children’s best interests. With respect to the physical custody arrangement, the Father argued that the Probate Court Judge abused her discretion in not considering the teenage boys’ need for stability, the strained relationship with their Mother, and their stated preferences to reside primarily with the Father. Although the Appeals Court found it was permissible to consider the children’s preferences regarding a custodial arrangement, it held that the Probate Court Judge had carefully considered the boys’ resistance to spending time with the Mother and were appropriately treated their preferences with caution. It further held that, considering the Father’s ongoing obstructionist behavior, it was in the best interests of the boys to promote continued and frequent contact with both parents despite their heavily influenced, stated desires to reside primarily with Father.

 

Categories

Fitch Law Partners LLP reports news and insights on complex litigation topics. Clients, colleagues and friends may receive The Fitch Briefs by signing up here.