Rubin v. Rubin
| Decision Date | 07 May 1976 |
| Citation | 370 Mass. 857,346 N.E.2d 919 |
| Parties | Ruth J. RUBIN v. Herbert Erwin RUBIN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Edward P. Reardon, Worcester, for petitioner.
Michael P. Angelini, Worcester, for respondent.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and KAPLAN, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
On March 5, 1974, a decree nisi was entered by a judge of the Probate Court for Worcester County which provided that the petitioner (wife) shall have custody of the two minor children; that the respondent (husband) shall have visitation rights and make payments for the support of his wife and two children; that the real estate owned by the parties, consisting of a marital home located in Worcester, Massachusetts, shall be sold and the proceeds shall be divided equally between the parties; and that the wife shall reside in the Commonwealth within forty-five miles of Worcester. On May 30, 1974, the wife petitioned for a modification of the original decree so as to be allowed to move with her children to New York City, where her ailing mother lives. The decree was modified to permit the wife to remove the children from the Commonwealth only with the permission of the husband or on order of the court. In addition, although the wife had not petitioned for such a modification, the judge ordered the husband to pay all the mortgage payments and expenses for cutting the grass until the marital home is sold, at which time he is to be reimbursed for these payments from the proceeds of the sale. The wife appeals from this modification decree. The evidence, including testimony given by the wife, her mother, and two doctors at a contested hearing, and an investigative report prepared by the Family Service Department of the Probate Court is reported, but there is no report of material facts. Although the evidence is conflicting, we do not believe that the judge below was plainly wrong in refusing to allow the wife to move with the children outside the Commonwealth. See Keiter v. Keiter, 357 Mass. 772, 773, 258 N.E.2d 778 (1970); Grandell v. Short, 317 Mass. 605, 608, 59 N.E.2d 274 (1945); Hersey v. Hersey, 271 Mass. 545, 554, 171 N.E. 815 (1930). In light of the evidence, the judge could properly find that such removal was not in the best interests of the children, and therefore, that cause had not been shown as required by c. 208, § 30. We are also of opinion that the judge was justified in modifying the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Miller
...the Commonwealth, has not abided by the terms of [§ 30 ]"). This court first interpreted the statutory language in Rubin v. Rubin, 370 Mass. 857, 857, 346 N.E.2d 919 (1976), where we held that the phrase "upon cause shown" means the best interests of the child. Even as of 1981, however, the......
-
Hale v. Hale
...208, § 30, set forth in the margin, 4 have been interpreted to permit removal if in the best interests of the child. Rubin v. Rubin, 370 Mass. 857, 346 N.E.2d 919 (1976). However, the criteria for determining such best interests have, as yet, not been established, and decisions of the trial......
-
Mason v. Coleman
...authorized by the court only "upon cause shown," meaning a showing that removal is in the children's best interests. Rubin v. Rubin, 370 Mass. 857, 346 N.E.2d 919 (1976). In Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704, 711, 481 N.E.2d 1153 (1985), we addressed removal where one parent had so......
-
Prenaveau v. Prenaveau
...interests of the child." Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704, 711, 481 N.E.2d 1153 (1985) (Yannas), citing Rubin v. Rubin, 370 Mass. 857, 857, 346 N.E.2d 919 (1976); Hale v. Hale, 12 Mass. App.Ct. 812, 815, 429 N.E.2d 340 (1981). How the best interests of the children are to be measu......