Charara v. Yatim
78 Mass. App. Ct. 325
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Said Yatim (father) and Hiba Charara (mother) are U.S. citizens with two minor sons; Massachusetts domicile and divorce proceedings were central to the dispute.
- In 2004 the family traveled to Lebanon to obtain a religious divorce; the mother was to receive custody of the children per court findings, but the father sought custody there instead.
- In Lebanon, the Jaafarite Court granted the father legal and physical custody in a guardianship decree; a travel ban was imposed on the mother, trapping her and the children in Lebanon for a time.
- The mother returned to Massachusetts in 2006 and filed the underlying divorce action in 2007, seeking custody and child support; the father answered on behalf of the mother’s husband’s counsel.
- A Massachusetts Probate and Family Court judge held that the Lebanese decree was not entitled to deference and that the best interests standard in Massachusetts governed custody; the judgment awarded custody to the mother and ordered $184 per week child support (corrected from $1,840).
- The appeal challenged (i) the deference to the Lebanese decree, (ii) the Lebanese best-interest standard as substantially conforming, and (iii) the child-support calculations and related findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCCJA allows deference to a foreign custody decree | Yatim contends that the Lebanese order should be given deference. | Charara contends the foreign order lacks substantial conformity and need not be deferred to. | No deference to the Lebanese decree. |
| Whether the Lebanese best-interests standard is substantially conforming | Yatim asserts substantial conformity with Massachusetts best-interests law. | Charara argues Lebanon’s standard aligns with MA law in key respects. | Lebanese best-interests standard is not in substantial conformity. |
| Whether the mother’s custody award in MA should be sustained | Yatim argues the Lebanon decree should control the custody outcome. | Charara argues MA best-interests standards compel custody to the mother here. | Massachusetts custody award to mother affirmed. |
| Whether the custody agreement reached in Lebanon was enforceable or was obtained under duress | Yatim contends the agreement was valid and binding. | Charara asserts the agreement was obtained under duress and thus unenforceable. | Agreement obtained under duress; unenforceable to bar MA proceedings. |
| Whether the child-support award was calculated correctly | Yatim argues the amount reflected in the judgment is a scrivener’s error. | Charara argues the amount is properly based on the guidelines and income findings. | Scrivener’s error; correct weekly payment is $184, not $1,840. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khan v. Saminni, 446 Mass. 88 (Mass. 2006) (deference to foreign custody order under MCCJA; discretionary in MCCJA §2)
- Qiuyue Shao v. Yue Ma, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 308 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (substantial conformity test for foreign custody orders)
- Custody of Kali, 439 Mass. 834 (Mass. 2003) (best interests standard as controlling for MA custody)
- Tazziz v. Tazziz, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 809 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988) (presumptions and best interests considerations in custody)
- Custody of a Minor (No. 3), 392 Mass. 728 (Mass. 1984) (foreign custody law and comity in best interests analysis)
- Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1895) (comity and recognition principles for foreign decrees)
- Jones v. Jones, 349 Mass. 259 (Mass. 1965) (assumption of foreign court jurisdiction in custody matters)
- Khan, supra, 446 Mass. 88 (Mass. 2006) (see Khan v. Saminni for deference framework under MCCJA)