Smith v. McDonald
458 Mass. 540
| Mass. | 2010Background
- Child born Aug. 29, 2007 to Danielle McDonald (mother) and Steven D. Smith, Jr. (father), who were not married.
- Mother moved with child from Massachusetts to New York (Batavia) in March 2008, before establishment of paternity.
- Paternity was adjudicated or acknowledged later (trial July 2008); parties filed stipulation for acknowledgment.
- Probate and Family Court ordered child returned to Massachusetts, mother awarded sole physical custody, father awarded joint legal custody, with visitation and support arrangements.
- Mother obtained a stay; child and mother moved back to Massachusetts; These decisions were appealed and remanded for reconsideration.
- Court found the relocation analysis used Yannas by the judge was improper and vacated the order to return the child; remand to PF Court for custody/visitation reconsideration under proper standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation to New York was in the child’s best interests under Yannas framework | Smith argues relocation harmed father-child relationship and bonding. | McDonald contends relocation was lawful and in child’s best interests given circumstances. | Remand; Yannas analysis not applicable to this case; need proper framework on remand. |
| Whether the judge exceeded authority by ordering the child’s return to Massachusetts | Father’s rights required when paternity was established; return supported. | Mother, as sole legal parent before adjudication, could relocate without court consent. | Order to return vacated; custody plan remanded under correct statutory framework. |
| Whether joint legal custody was supported by findings and permissible under statute | Father should have joint custody given involvement and bonding needs. | Record showed hostile relationship; joint custody not supported by findings. | Joint custody vacated; remand for proper factual basis and decision. |
| Whether visitation schedule was appropriate and consistent with best interests | Frequent, meaningful contact necessary for bonding. | Visitation premised on erroneous relocation order; must be reconsidered on remand. | Visitation upheld as reasonable, but remanded to reframe timing under correct standards. |
| Whether past due child support should have been awarded retroactively | Mother entitled to past support under statute. | No request or motion for retroactive support; record insufficient. | No retroactive support awarded; within discretion; remand not necessary for this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Custody of Kali, 439 Mass. 834 (2003) (best interests framework; preserve primary caregiver relationship when possible)
- Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704 (1985) (test for relocation in dual-parent custody; balance advantages and effects on child)
- Wakefield v. Hegarty, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 772 (2006) (removal/relocation where two legal parents; need consent or court order)
- Mason v. Coleman, 447 Mass. 177 (2006) (joint custody analysis; prior cooperation and ability to cooperate)
- Custody of Odette, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 904 (2004) (explicit findings required for joint custody when cooperation is doubtful)
- Prenaveau v. Prenaveau, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 131 (2009) (remanding custody when sole custody could be aligned with relocation needs)