K.A. v. T.R.
86 Mass. App. Ct. 554
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Parties married in 1997, separated in April 2010; two children (son age 13, daughter age 10 at trial). Father is a police officer; mother was primary caretaker.\
- Father filed for divorce April 2010 and obtained temporary custody orders; a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed and produced a comprehensive report.\
- Mother testified to multiple incidents of physical abuse by father during the marriage; judge found a pattern of abuse under G. L. c. 208, § 31A but credited parts of mother’s testimony and GAL’s findings inconsistently.\
- Children became increasingly alienated from the mother by winter 2009–2010; evidence showed behavioral problems with mother and calm, stable behavior with father. GAL warned placing children primarily with mother could risk escalation/violence and serious harm.\
- Trial court found father rebutted the statutory presumption against custody to an abusive parent and awarded primary physical custody to father with substantial parenting time to mother; court resolved several contempt claims (one resulted in a payment order to mother).\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge made required §31A findings about effects of abuse on the children | Judge failed to make adequate written findings about how father’s abuse affected the children | Judge made findings reflecting effects (therapies, child reports, interruption of home life) sufficient under §31A | Court: Findings were adequate; no reversal for lack of §31A findings |
| Whether father rebutted §31A presumption against awarding custody to abusive parent | A perpetrator who refuses to admit fault cannot overcome the presumption; children’s preferences may be coached | Father rebutted by showing children’s safety with him, mother’s compromised parenting, GAL’s views, father’s lifestyle changes, and lack of credible evidence of coaching | Court: Rebuttal proved by preponderance; custody award to father permissible |
| Whether judge misunderstood domestic violence and erred in concluding abuse was less likely after separation | Judge minimized ongoing coercive control and risk of post-separation abuse/alienation and wrongly discounted mother’s expert on brainwashing | Judge relied on GAL, therapists, and trial evidence showing no credible proof of coaching/alienation and no physical violence post-separation | Court: Judge’s credibility assessments supported; no clear error in evaluating risk post-separation |
| Contempt findings re deferred compensation and other orders | Mother argued father violated order by liquidating entire deferred compensation and withholding funds | Father argued actions fell within order’s flexibility or were justified; trial judge found mitigating facts and ordered partial payment | Court: No abuse of discretion; contempt rulings affirmed (father ordered to pay specified sum) |
Key Cases Cited
- Charara v. Yatim, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 325 (court’s best-interests standard and discretion in custody determinations)\
- Maalouf v. Saliba, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 547 (application of G. L. c. 208, § 31A to custody decisions involving domestic violence)\
- Custody of Vaughn, 422 Mass. 590 (§ 31A findings and effects of abuse discussion)\
- J.S. v. C.C., 454 Mass. 652 (deference to GAL and trial court on custody credibility assessments)\
- Adoption of Elena, 446 Mass. 24 (trial court credibility and weight of expert testimony)