Ventrice v. Ventrice, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 190

Diane filed for divorce in Dec. 2010; four children (ages ~5–12 at trial); marriage irretrievably broken.
Parties ran a children’s business; parenting roles varied over time; both parents found to have parenting shortcomings.
Guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended sole legal and physical custody of all four children to Michael, describing him as the more "stable parent"; GAL reported safety and supervision concerns at Diane’s home and other problematic conduct by Diane.
Trial occurred May 2012; amended judgment nisi (July 12, 2013, nunc pro tunc to June 14, 2013) awarded Linda (oldest) to Michael and the other three children to Diane, and required court-directed mediation (shared cost) before either party could file any subsequent Probate and Family Court action.
Michael appealed two provisions: (1) the mandatory, party‑paid prefiling mediation requirement as violating free access to courts under art. 11 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and (2) the custody award for three children to Diane, arguing the judge failed to consider and explain why she rejected the GAL’s contrary recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Diane)	Defendant's Argument (Michael)	Held
Whether court may condition filing a Probate & Family Court action on completion of court-ordered, party‑paid mediation	Mediation promotes settlement and was a reasonable case-management tool	Pre-filing, party‑paid mediation unconstitutionally burdens access to courts under art. 11 by delaying access and imposing likely costly preconditions	Vacated: mandatory, party‑paid prefiling mediation violates art. 11; judge may refer to dispute resolution but may not condition filing or force parties to pay without agreement
Whether award of sole custody of three children to Diane was supported by record and findings	Custody award to Diane is appropriate (party position summarized)	Judge failed to address substantial record evidence (GAL’s recommendation, safety and supervision concerns favoring Michael) and did not ground decision in record	Vacated and remanded for additional findings: judge must explain why she rejected GAL and address record evidence to support best‑interests determination

Bower v. Bournay-Bower, 469 Mass. 690 (Supreme Judicial Ct.) (court-appointed officials may not be given final, binding authority over parental disputes; judge retains nondelegable decisionmaking power)
Graizzaro v. Graizzaro, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 911 (Mass. App. Ct.) (courts may urge settlement but cannot deny access to judicial forum)
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (U.S. Supreme Court) (cost requirements may deny access to courts and deprive litigants of due process)
Gustin v. Gustin, 420 Mass. 854 (Supreme Judicial Ct.) (judge typically cannot compel binding arbitration absent party agreement)
Prenaveau v. Prenaveau, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 479 (Mass. App. Ct.) (custody findings must have sufficient record support; appellate deference limited by absence of record foundation)
Ardizoni v. Raymond, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 734 (Mass. App. Ct.) (custody determinations lie within judge’s discretion but require weighing relevant evidence)
Felton v. Felton, 383 Mass. 232 (Supreme Judicial Ct.) (ultimate custody conclusions require foundation in ground‑level facts)