Potential Changes to Interstate Custody Dispute Law in Massachusetts

After a three month maternity leave, and a few months adjusting to being a full-time working mom, I’m excited to be back to contributing my thoughts to this blog! I’m also excited to be writing on a topic that I not only find interesting but also encounter a great deal in my practice – interstate custody disputes.

Pure Home State Jurisdiction

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote a piece about the differences between child custody laws in Massachusetts and Rhode Island with a specific focus on the differences between the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). As detailed in the previous post, Massachusetts was the lone hold-out in adopting the UCCJEA, retaining pure home state jurisdiction when determining where to litigate child custody disputes.

Continue Reading

Change Is Good – Handing Over the Reins

Do these things come with instructions?

Hi there,

In addition to being a busy practicing partner here at Burns & Levinson, I’ve been the chair of the Divorce & Family group and co-chair of the Private Client group since 1989. I’ve had the privilege of assisting more people than I can count through some of the most challenging times in their lives. It’s been rewarding, fun and occasionally crazy. The legal world has changed so much, staying up to date with new laws, technologies and ways to communicate continues to be exciting.

I’m thrilled to announce that my very able partner, Robin Lynch Nardone, has agreed to replace me as chair! Robin and I have worked together for 20 years and I know she’ll do a terrific job. Not to worry though, I’m not retiring! This will just give me more time for focusing on my clients, writing these blog posts and my one true love – spending more time with my animals. My horse, Noah, is a big proponent of this decision.

Continue Reading

Misinterpreting the Law Doesn’t Negate an Alimony Agreement

The Appeals Court decision in DeMarco v. DeMarco reminds us that a deal is a deal, even when it’s entered into based upon advice from a trial judge who misinterprets the law.

In this case, the husband and wife were divorced in May 2010. At that time they signed a separation agreement calling for the husband to pay alimony to his wife of until the death of either party, the wife’s remarriage, or such time as the husband had no gross earned income after reaching age 68. After the Alimony Reform Act was passed into law in 2012, the husband filed a complaint for modification seeking to terminate his alimony obligation based upon his having reached full retirement age.

Continue Reading

LexBlog