Murray v. Super, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 146

Parties divorced in 2011; mother (Dawn Murray) awarded primary physical custody of three sons (ages 17 and 12 at trial); father (Jonathan Super) had defined parenting time and paid $830/week child support plus 25% of net bonuses.
Mother remarried a California resident and sought to remove the children to Danville, CA, citing emotional, social, and financial advantages (including contributions from her new husband and family nearby).
Father filed for modification seeking reduced support (arguing mother now receives husband’s support) and a defined holiday/vacation schedule; cases were consolidated and tried in Probate and Family Court.
Trial judge found the move would be a "real advantage" to the mother but denied removal as not in the children’s best interests and not in the father’s interests; extensive factual findings about children’s school/activities and strong father–children bond supported that decision.
Judge reduced father’s weekly support slightly by imputing an estimated $1,000/week contribution from mother’s husband and eliminated the bonus-share obligation; appellate court affirmed denial of removal but vacated the child support changes for further findings and reinstated the bonus component.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Murray)	Defendant's Argument (Super)	Held
Removal to California	Move is a "real advantage" (remarriage, spouse’s resources, family support) and would not harm children’s opportunities	Move would severely curtail father’s meaningful parenting time and disrupt children’s stable community/activities	Denied—real advantage found for mother but move not in children’s best interests or father’s interests
Standard for removal	Apply Yannas two‑prong test; real advantage satisfied here	Same standard; emphasize children’s relationship with father and negative effects of cross‑country move	Court applied Yannas: must show real advantage then weigh best interests; children’s interests prevail when conflict exists
Child support: attributing spouse contributions	Husband’s voluntary support should be counted to reduce father's obligation	Contributions may be considered under guidelines but require factual findings on nature/use/obligation	Vacated—trial judge must make additional findings about husband’s contributions before treating them as mother’s income
Elimination of father’s bonus obligation	Mother did not challenge elimination? (not applicable)	Elimination was sua sponte and could under/overstate guideline result	Reversed—trial court erred to eliminate bonus portion sua sponte; bonus component reinstated pending further findings

Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704 (1985) (establishes two‑prong removal test: real advantage to custodial parent then best interests of children)
Hale v. Hale, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 812 (1981) (earlier articulation of removal/real advantage principles adopted in Yannas)
Dickenson v. Cogswell, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 442 (2006) (discusses weighing of Yannas factors and primacy of children’s interests)
Pizzino v. Miller, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 865 (2006) (removal governed by G. L. c. 208, § 30; court must balance custodial parent’s right to move and noncustodial parent’s access)
Rosenthal v. Maney, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 257 (2001) (alternative visitation must permit ongoing, meaningful contact to support removal)
Barboza v. McLeod, 447 Mass. 468 (2006) (standard of review: factual findings not set aside unless clearly erroneous)
M.C. v. T.K., 463 Mass. 226 (2012) (child support guidelines govern parental obligations; courts may consider various income sources)
Custody of Eleanor, 414 Mass. 795 (1993) (deference to trial judge’s credibility assessments in custody determinations)