Haas v. Puchalski
| Decision Date | 10 April 1980 |
| Parties | Michele Puchalski HAAS v. Raymond J. PUCHALSKI, Jr. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Paul H. Rothschild, Springfield, for plaintiff.
Edward P. Smith, Greenfield, for defendant.
Before BROWN, GREANEY and KASS, JJ.
On May 25, 1977, Michele Puchalski Haas was granted a judgment of divorce nisi in a Probate Court from Raymond Puchalski on the ground of cruel and abusive treatment. Michele was awarded custody of their son Joshua, now five years old, with visitation rights to Raymond. Raymond was required to make support payments. The judgment prohibited Michele from removing Joshua from the Commonwealth.
On April 20, 1978, after Raymond filed a complaint for change of custody and termination of support payments, and moved for an order for temporary custody, he was given custody of Joshua by a temporary ex parte order on the ground that Michele had taken Joshua to Germany without notice to or the consent of Raymond.
On April 24, 1978, the Probate Court dissolved the order of April 20, 1978, and returned custody to Michele upon her posting a $1000 bond and further "prohibited, enjoined and restrained (her) from removing the minor child of the parties, Joshua John, from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Michele, however, on this date, sought a modification to allow her to take Joshua to Colorado. 1 On September 7, 1978, a judgment entered which relieved Raymond of all responsibility for support of the child, but otherwise made no modification of the May 25, 1977, judgment. 2
On November 22, 1978, Raymond again filed a complaint for a change in custody, alleging violation of the order prohibiting Michele from removing Joshua from the Commonwealth. On November 24, 1978, Raymond obtained a second ex parte order transferring custody to him on the ground that Michele had taken Joshua to Colorado in violation of the restraining order. After Raymond had taken physical custody of Joshua and returned to Massachusetts with him, Michele, on March 2, 1979, filed a motion to revoke the temporary order of November 24, 1978, which was denied. She also filed a complaint for modification seeking to take Joshua back to Colorado.
By order of a probate judge, 3 judgments were entered after a hearing on the cross complaints for modification on April 17, 1979, transferring custody to Raymond and providing for one month's visitation with Michele in Colorado, upon her posting $1000 bond to insure the return of the child. 4 From these judgments Michele now appeals. We reverse for reasons to be set out below.
The judge made no findings of fact; however, the transcript of the evidence is before us. 5 Our standard of review in such circumstances is fully explicated in Fuller v. Fuller, 2 Mass.App. 372, 373-374, 312 N.E.2d 581 (1974), and cases cited.
The original judgment awarding custody to Michele must be presumed to have been right. It settled all questions in issue between the parties at the time it was entered. It was designed to endure until facts brought to the attention of the court should require a change. Hersey v. Hersey, 271 Mass. 545, 554, 171 N.E. 815 (1930). Fuller v. Fuller, 2 Mass.App. 372, 376, 312 N.E.2d 581 (1974).
To warrant a transfer of custody from one parent to another, following a determination of custody in a divorce proceeding, there must be a relevant change in circumstances. See Hinds v. Hinds, 329 Mass. 190, 191, 107 N.E.2d 319 (1952). Contrast Stevens v. Stevens, 337 Mass. 625, 627, 151 N.E.2d 166 (1958).
Although it cannot be denied that Michele acted improperly in removing the child to Germany and Colorado without the consent of Raymond, "this conduct on her part cannot be permitted to interfere with the welfare of the child, the paramount and governing consideration." Heard v. Heard, 323 Mass. 357, 377, 82 N.E.2d 219, 231 (1948).
Hersey v. Hersey, supra, 271 Mass. at 555, 171 N.E. at 820. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Michele has been in any respect an inadequate parent, or that her second marriage has been detrimental to Joshua. Fuller v. Fuller, supra, 2 Mass.App. at 377, 312 N.E.2d 581.
Although it may in fact be true...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Collins
...854 (1973). See Commonwealth v. Aguiar, supra 370 Mass. at 496, 350 N.E.2d 436; Commonwealth v. Cantalupo, --- Mass. ---, --- h, 402 N.E.2d 1088 (1980). Consent is voluntary if it is free of coercion, express or implied, and arises from something more than the defendant's mere acquiescence ......
-
Chaar v. Chehab
...of the custody order. See Hernandez v. Branciforte, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 212, 220, 770 N.E.2d 41 (2002). See also Haas v. Puchalski, 9 Mass.App.Ct. 555, 557, 402 N.E.2d 1088 (1980); Delmolino v. Nance, 14 Mass.App.Ct. 209, 214, 437 N.E.2d 578 (1982). Contrary to the father's contention, there is......
-
Hunter v. Rose
...7, 13, 627 N.E.2d 474 (1994) (custody based on parent's ability to subordinate her needs to those of children); Haas v. Puchalski, 9 Mass.App.Ct. 555, 557, 402 N.E.2d 1088 (1980) (denial of custody where home was not “settled” and child would be cared for by multiple providers rather than p......
-
Hale v. Hale
...v. Heard, 323 Mass. 357, 377-378, 82 N.E.2d 219 (1948). Haas v. Puchalski, --- Mass. ---, ---, Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1980) 741, 743, 402 N.E.2d 1088. See also Masters v. Craddock, 4 Mass.App. 426, 428-429, 351 N.E.2d 217 (1976).6 Because of these conclusions, we need not consider any constit......