Vilakazi v. Maxie

Decision Date02 December 1976
Citation371 Mass. 406,357 N.E.2d 763
PartiesThemba G. VILAKAZI v. Carol M. Vilakazi MAXIE.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Kristen Lasker, Watertown, for Carol M. Vilakazi Maxie.

Elaine M. Moriarty, Boston, for Themba G. Vilakazi.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, WILKINS and LIACOS, JJ.

QUIRICO, Justice.

This is a petition entered in the Probate Court on May 10, 1973, by the father of a female child, then almost three years of age, asking that he be granted custody of the child and naming the mother of the child as respondent. After several temporary orders and other interlocutory proceedings thereon, and a hearing on the merits, a judge of the Probate Court entered a decree on December 5, 1974, granting the father and his second wife 'custody and possession of said minor child until the further order of the Court, with no rights of visitation by (the mother).' The case is now before us on the mother's appeal from that decree. 1 The appeal was first entered in the Appeals Court and was then removed to this court on our own motion under G.L. c. 211A, § 10(A).

After she appealed the mother filed a request under G.L. c. 215, § 11, that the judge report the material facts found by him, and the judge filed such a report. It appears from the docket entries before us that on March 20, 1975, the mother filed a 'Motion for Extension of Time for Filing of Transcript,' and that on June 12, 1975, the judge allowed a 'Motion to Dismiss Request for Transcript.' It does not appear from the record before us that any exceptions or appeals were claimed from the judge's action in relation to a transcript, and the mother's brief raises no question for review by this court thereon. We summarize below the material facts found and reported by the judge.

When the child was born on July 15, 1970, the parents were living in New York. Marital problems which developed in the summer of 1972 resulted in the separation of the parents. The father, for the most part, had cared for the child during her tender months and until the parents separated. At some point during the separation the mother authorized the father to care for the child and to take the child with him when he moved to Boston in May, 1973.

After moving to Boston, the child was cared for by her father and stepmother. The stepmother is a stable young woman, a university graduate, and a full time professional teacher, and she enjoys a good relationship with the father. The mother visited the child in her new home in Boston and encouraged the child to look to the stepmother for discipline, education, and emotional guidance.

When the father filed his petition on May 10, 1973, he was awarded custody of the child pending a hearing and until further order of the court. On October 31, 1973, he was awarded temporary custody of the child and the mother was granted reasonable visitation rights. This order was later modified by specifying the times and places at which the mother was entitled to visit the child. 2

The period of time covered by the several modifications of the court order granting the mother visitation rights coincided with a period of increasing differences between the parents over the visitations as they affected the child. There were captures and recaptures of the child in New York and Boston in circumstances which were harmful to the child and which caused emotional and physical reactions in the child commensurate with these distresses. The mother insisted, as a matter of the dictates of her conscience, on instructing and educating the child on the basis of certain philosophy, and the father and stepmother were attempting to overcome those instructions. The child suffered from that tug-of-war. The father and stepmother have become the dominant custodians of the child, caring for her physical and emotional needs, and the child has responded well in spite of the controversy over her. The child evidenced a growing concern as the result of the instructions which the mother was giving her, and the father and stepmother observed reactions in the child following the visitations by the mother. If given custody or even visitation rights, the mother would continue the same teachings to the child.

At the conclusion of the hearing, and after an interview with the child, the judge awarded custody of the child to the father and stepmother, with no rights of visitation by the mother.

This case is before us solely on the judge's report of material facts, the evidence not having been reported. The scope of review in such a case was delineated in Sodones v. Sodones, 366 Mass. 121, 126--127, 314 N.E.2d 906, 910 (1974), where we said that '(a)bsent a report of the evidence, an appellate court is bound by the facts reported. We must accept the report as including all the facts considered material by the judge to his decision, and cannot infer the existence of other facts not included therein. And we must accept the facts found as true unless the report itself indicates that they are mutually inconsistent or plainly wrong. If they are not, the only question before us is whether the decree entered was supported by the material facts reported. Sidlow v. Gosselin, 310 Mass. 395, 397--398, 38 N.E.2d 665 (1941). Thompson v. Thompson, 312 Mass. 245, 246--247, 44 N.E.2d 651 (1942). Cf. Brooks v. National Shawmut Bank, 323 Mass. 677, 680--681, 684--685, 84 N.E.2d 318 (1949).' See Adoption of a Minor ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Felton v. Felton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 31 Marzo 1981
    ...158 Cal.App.2d 281, 285, 322 P.2d 231 (1958); Morris v. Morris, --- Pa.Super. ---, ---, 412 A.2d 139, 143 (1979). Cf. Vilakazi v. Maxie, 371 Mass. 406, 409, 357 N.Ed.2d 763 (1976); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-167, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944). However, harm to the c......
  • Custody of Minor
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 1979
    ...is a probable victim of parental neglect. See J. and E. v. M. and F., 157 N.J.Super. 478, 385 A.2d 240 (1978). See also Vilakazi v. Maxie, 371 Mass. 406, --- F, 357 N.E.2d 763 2. Although it is clear that the judge possessed sufficient grounds to find the child in need of care and protectio......
  • Kendall v. Kendall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 9 Diciembre 1997
    ...award joint legal custody to the parties. The determination of custody rests within the discretion of the judge. Vilakazi v. Maxie, 371 Mass. 406, 409, 357 N.E.2d 763 (1976). The material facts found and reported must support the judge's action in awarding joint legal custody to the parties......
  • Smith v. Mcdonald
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 14 Diciembre 2010
    ...should not be disregarded, the happiness and the welfare of the child should be the controlling consideration.” Vilakazi v. Maxie, 371 Mass. 406, 409, 357 N.E.2d 763 (1976), quoting Jenkins v. Jenkins, 304 Mass. 248, 250, 23 N.E.2d 405 (1939). At the same time, the court must not pursue bli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT