Hunter v. Rose
463 Mass. 488
| Mass. | 2012Background
- This matter involves direct appellate review of Probate and Family Court decisions recognizing a California registered domestic partnership (RDP) as equivalent to marriage, declaring the parties legal parents of two children, dissolving the RDP, and awarding custody and attorney’s fees.
- California law, Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5(a), provides RDPs with rights, protections, and duties identical to marriage; Cal. Fam. Code § 299.3 made these provisions retroactive to 2005 where not terminated.
- Hunter and Rose conceived Jill in 2007 and Mia in 2009; Jill was born in Rhode Island, Mia in Massachusetts, with Rose initially involved in Jill’s care.
- Rose allegedly moved Jill to Oregon and later to Michigan, limited Hunter’s contact, and pursued clinical rotations to minimize Hunter’s involvement, while resisting Hunter’s adoption efforts.
- The trial court found both Hunter and Rose were Jill’s legal parents under MA and CA law, dissolved the RDP, granted Hunter sole legal/physical custody of Mia and primary physical custody of Jill to Hunter, with Rose visitation, and awarded Hunter $180,000 in attorney’s fees.
- The Massachusetts Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, upholding recognition of the CA RDP, custody determinations, and the attorney’s fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recognition of California RDP as equivalent to marriage | Hunter urged comity recognition of CA RDP as marriage-equivalent | Rose challenged recognition of CA RDP as equivalent to marriage | No error; RDP rights are effectively identical to marriage under CA law and recognized under comity. |
| Custody determination for Jill | Best interests favor Hunter given Jill’s bond and stability | Rose contended custody should remain with her | Court did not abuse discretion; primary physical custody to Hunter warranted by best interests and geographic distance. |
| Attorney’s fees award to Hunter | Fees justified by Rose’s obstructionist conduct and novel legal issues | Challenge to fee amount and basis | Court affirmed $180,000 in attorney’s fees based on need, conduct, and relative financial positions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoption of Kali, 439 Mass. 834 (Mass. 2003) (factors in custody decisions; stability and parental roles)
- Smith v. McDonald, 458 Mass. 540 (Mass. 2010) (unfitness and removal issues; parental rights in custody)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 2005) (nonbiological mother status under Cal. Fam. Code; presumed parentage)
- In re Salvador M., 111 Cal. App. 4th 1353 (Cal. App. 2003) (presumed parent status applies to same-sex partners)
- S.Y. v. S.B., 201 Cal. App. 4th 1023 (Cal. App. 2011) (presumed parent status in absence of marriage/partnership)
- Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. App. 4th 364 (Cal. App. 2009) (Prop. 8 and same-sex marriage framework context)
- Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) (Prop. 8 ruling context; recognition of rights)