K.B. v. R.H.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-1090
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-1090

K.B.

vs.

R.H.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

This appeal arises from the successful effort of the

plaintiff (mother) to modify a judgment for parenting time. We

affirm.

The parties are the never-married parents of a child, now

fourteen. They originally stipulated to shared physical and

legal custody in 2015 and modified that judgment by agreement in

2017. In October 2024, the mother filed a complaint seeking a

further modification, alleging that the child did not wish to go

to the defendant father's home "due to concerning behavior,

verbal abuse and regular alcohol use." On the mother's motion,

a judge of the Probate and Family Court appointed a guardian ad

litem to interview the child and "determine her wishes and best interests related to parenting time with either parent." The

judge later entered temporary orders that allowed the father

parenting time over the weekends. After receiving a

confidential report from the guardian ad litem and holding a

trial at which both parents testified, the judge concluded that

the mother should have parenting time from Sunday at 6 P.M.

until Friday after school, with the father having parenting time

on the weekends and one weeknight visit. The father appealed.

"In custody matters, the touchstone inquiry [is] . . . what

is best for the child, and [t]he determination of which parent

will promote a child's best interests rests within the

discretion of the judge . . . [whose] findings . . . must stand

unless they are plainly wrong" (quotations omitted). Malachi M.

v. Quintina Q., 483 Mass. 725, 740 (2019), quoting Hunter v.

Rose, 463 Mass. 488, 494 (2012). The familiar "best interests

analysis is a child-centered one that focuses on the specific

needs and interests of a child and how these might best be met."

Charara v. Yatim, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 325, 336 (2010). In a

modification proceeding, the proponent "must first establish

that a material and substantial change in circumstance has

occurred to warrant a change in custody, and that the change is

in the child's best interests." E.K. v. S.C., 97 Mass. App. Ct.

403, 408 (2020). "We review the judgment and the subsidiary

findings of fact for abuse of discretion or other error of law.

2 A trial judge's findings of fact will not be set aside unless

clearly erroneous." Murray v. Super, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 146, 148

(2015).

The father maintains that the modification was in error

because (1) it was not supported by sufficient findings or

evidence in the record to conclude that there was a material and

substantial change in circumstances, and (2) the record support

was inadequate to conclude that the modification was in the

child's best interests. In support of his contentions, the

father emphasizes record evidence that weighs in favor of his

position. He posits that the child's preference is too slender

a reed to support the requested modification and must be

"treated with caution."

While it would have been preferable for the judge to make

specific findings to explain her reasoning, we cannot conclude

that she committed an error of law. The judgment incorporated

the findings of the guardian ad litem (GAL), which described

that the child sometimes did not "feel safe" at the father's

home, and had "experienced uncomfortable situations" with the

father, whose alcohol use affected her time with him. The child

reported that both parents speak poorly about one another but

noted that she was more upset when the father spoke poorly about

the mother and believed that he said negative, "unnecessary

things" about the mother. The child informed the GAL that she

3 had been asking to have more parenting time with the mother for

"quite a few years," demonstrating that the request was not the

passing passion of a mercurial teen. Finally, the child

maintained that spending more time with the mother would "be

beneficial for her mental health and would reduce her stress."

In addition to reviewing the GAL report, the judge heard

the testimony of the parties and the GAL during a trial. "We

accord the credibility determinations of the judge who 'heard

the testimony of the parties . . . [and] observed their

demeanor,' the utmost deference." Ginsberg v. Blacker, 67 Mass.

App. Ct. 139, 140 n.3 (2006), quoting Pike v. Maguire, 47 Mass.

App. Ct. 929, 929 (1999). Although the judgment did not include

specific credibility determinations, the judge was able to

observe the father as he responded to questions about, for

example, the child's assertion that she did not feel safe in his

home. Though spare, the record includes sufficient factual

4 support that we conclude that the judge did not commit clear

error.

Judgment dated June 26, 2025, affirmed.

By the Court (Neyman, Hershfang & Toone, JJ. 1),

Clerk

Entered: June 17, 2026.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.