In a decision handed down on May 3, 2018, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a Probate and Family Court Judge's ruling and held that the court must dismiss a petition for grandparent visitation "when the petition does not sufficiently allege why visitation is necessary to protect the child from significant harm." See Martinez v. Martinez-Cintron, No. 17-P-1056 (Mass. App. Ct. May 3, 2018).
Settlement conferences in pending divorce and family law cases often result in the parties entering full and final settlement agreements. The parties in such a case appear at an uncontested hearing when they ask the Judge to approve and incorporate their signed agreement into the court's judgment. This settlement procedure takes place in lieu of the parties taking their contested issues to trial, after which the Judge enters a final judgment on behalf of the parties, which is a final resolution of the case not based on an agreement between the parties, but on the Judge's findings of fact and his or her application of the law to such facts, which must be presented to the Judge in accordance with applicable rules of evidence at trial. Trying a case can indeed be a very expensive and time-consuming process.
Often we hear about the best interests legal standard that Judges in the Probate and Family Courts apply to make important decisions affecting the lives of minor children. Custody determinations and appropriate parenting plans are based on this guiding principle. Contrary to common belief, the "best interests" standard is gender-blind. M.G.L. Chapter 208, Section 31 provides that in determining the question of custody "the rights of the parents shall . . . be held to be equal." In deciding issues involving custody, the overriding concern of the Probate and Family Court Justice assigned to the case must be the promotion of the best interests of the children and their general welfare, not the gender, feelings or wishes of a particular parent.