Prenaveau v. Prenaveau
81 Mass. App. Ct. 479
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- This appeal involves a divorce custody dispute over two children, with prior remand in Prenaveau I directing reassessment of relocation and asset division.
- The original 2009 judgment awarded the father primary residence in New Hampshire and limited the mother's access, prompting appellate reversal and remand.
- A remand guardian ad litem (GAL) found both parents capable and nearly equal in parenting and recommended a plan with primary residence with the mother during school year and summer custody to the father.
- The probate judge on remand entered a June 30, 2010 amended judgment relocating the children to New Hampshire with detailed cooperation and visitation provisions.
- The mother appeals the removal of the children; the father cross-appeals the share of the PM Associates ownership; the retirement account division remains at issue.
- The Massachusetts appellate panel ultimately vacates the removal portion and remands for custody plan reflecting stability, reduced shuttle, and shared parenting under GAL guidance, while affirming asset division except where noted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was relocation to New Hampshire justified by the best interests of the children? | Prenaveau argues relocation lacks compelling reasons and ignores reasonable alternatives. | Prenaveau contends relocation serves continuity and parental involvement with the father. | Removal reversed; not supported by sufficient compelling reasons. |
| Should the custody plan be revised to reduce shuttle and promote stability and joint involvement? | Prenaveau sought preservation of Massachusetts residence and less disruption. | Prenaveau urged continued relocation to maximize parental involvement. | Remand custody plan preferred; adopt GAL-based plan with mother in Stoughton school year and father summer custody, minimizing travel. |
| How should marital assets, specifically the retirement account and PM Associates stock, be distributed? | Mother claims different valuation and inclusion of assets as marital; father seeks share of PM Associates. | Valuation date and nature of PM Associates as pre-marital assets are contested; argued entitlement to share. | Retirement account split remains one-half to father (as of original date); PM Associates ownership remains with mother; issues not fully reviewable on appeal. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the standard of review for custody and relocation under Mason v. Coleman and related precedents? | Relocation requires distinct advantages and feasible alternatives; burden on relocating parent not met. | Court should consider stability and parental involvement; relocation may be justified. | Court vacates the relocation order due to insufficient justification and lack of adequate alternative analysis. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not adequately following remand GAL recommendations? | GAL findings favored more balanced, shared parenting; trial court ignored them. | Trial court reasonably weighed evidence and crafted a plan aligned with children’s best interests. | Remanded with guidance to adopt GAL-inspired structure and protections, finalizing a practical custody framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. Coleman, 447 Mass. 177 (Mass. 2006) (guides relocation and best-interests standard; equal parental involvement favored)
- Jones v. Jones, 349 Mass. 259 (Mass. 1965) (stability and continuity as core interests in custody decisions)
- Custody of Kali, 439 Mass. 834 (Mass. 2003) (advocates stability and parental involvement in custody planning)
- Prenaveau I, v. Prenaveau, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 131 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (remand for compelling reasons, reasonable alternatives, and GAL guidance)
- Notable related: Zia, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 237 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (illustrates concerns about custody based on parental judgment and input)
- Freedman v. Freedman, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 519 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard in custody decisions)
- Rosenthal v. Maney, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 257 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001) (deference to trial-court factual findings; abuse of discretion standard)
- Custody of Zia, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 237 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (illustrates caution in disrupting established custody arrangements)