M.A. v. C.J.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: June 1, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-0135
• Status: Unpublished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-135

M.A.

vs.

C.J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The parties are the never-married parents of a child born

in February 2020. The defendant (mother) appeals from a

judgment finding her in contempt and modifying the parties'

custody arrangement. We affirm.

Background. The parties have joint legal custody with

shared physical custody of their child pursuant to two

orders/decrees issued by a judge of the Rhode Island Family

Court dated December 27, 2022, and February 23, 2023. Pursuant

to those orders, the parties "have 50/50 placement, with primary

placement with the mother for education and support services"

during the week due to her living in Cambridge, where the child attends school and receives services. The father generally has

the child on the weekends and certain holidays and vacations.

In 2024, at the end of the regular school year, the father

took the child for two weeks that were not his scheduled two

weeks. The mother filed an emergency motion for custody that

resulted in a judge's ordering, on July 9, 2024, "Child has been

returned to Mother. Standard schedule shall resume." The judge

further ordered that, because the father unilaterally and

wrongfully took his two weeks of vacation time, and therefore

had his allotted summer vacation time, he had his two weeks and

would not have further vacation time with the child that summer.

The mother subsequently did not allow the father any parenting

time during August 2024.

In February 2024, the father filed a complaint for

modification in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court.

Falsely asserting that he had sole custody under two different

Rhode Island orders, the father sought sole custody. In

September 2024, the father filed a complaint for contempt, which

was consolidated with the complaint for modification and tried.

The trial judge found the mother guilty of contempt for not

allowing the father his parenting time in August 2024 pursuant

to the standard schedule and ordered the parties to maintain

2 shared legal and physical custody of the child, with some

modifications to the holiday and vacation schedule.

Discussion. 1. Contempt. Civil contempt requires "a

clear and undoubted disobedience of a clear and unequivocal

command." Sax v. Sax, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 765, 771 (2002),

quoting United Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Jay's Stores, Inc., 361

Mass. 35, 36 (1972). "The complainant must prove his case by a

preponderance of the evidence." L.F. v. L.J., 71 Mass. App. Ct.

813, 821 (2008). "Due [p]rocess requires that a . . .

[defendant] must be given notice of the charges against [her]

prior to a hearing" for civil contempt (citation omitted).

Sodones v. Sodones, 366 Mass. 121, 128 (1974). We review the

finding of contempt for abuse of discretion, reversing only if

the judge's decision is one "that no conscientious judge, acting

intelligently, could honestly have taken" (citation omitted).

L.F., supra.

The mother contends that she was not given adequate notice

of the basis for the contempt charges against her and that the

orders on the custody arrangement were ambiguous. We are

unpersuaded. The father's complaint for contempt identified the

August dates he was denied his parenting time. The mother

appeared at the hearing and engaged in a substantive back-and-

forth with the trial judge on her interpretation of the July 9,

3 2024 order and her explanation for denying the father his August

parenting time. "On these facts we conclude that the [mother]

had adequate notice" that she was charged with denying the

father his parenting time in August 2024 pursuant to the July 9,

2024 order, and that "[she] has waived the deficiencies, if any,

in such notice." Sodones, 366 Mass. at 129. The July 9, 2024

order clearly stated that the "Standard schedule shall resume,"

and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding

that the mother violated that order by denying the father his

standard parenting time in August. See L.F., 781 Mass. App. Ct.

at 821.

2. Modification. Modification of a child custody

arrangement is appropriate where the court finds "a material and

substantial change in circumstances has occurred to warrant a

change in custody, and that change is in the child's best

interest." E.K. v. S.C., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 403, 408 (2020).

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

best for the child" (citation omitted). Id. "The 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" (citation omitted). Id. We review the trial judge's

decision for abuse of discretion or clear error of law and defer

to the judge's factual findings "absent a showing that they are

4 plainly wrong or clearly erroneous." Schechter v. Schechter, 88

Mass. App. Ct. 239, 245 (2015). "The judge is afforded

considerable freedom to identify pertinent factors in assessing

the welfare of the child and weigh them as [he] sees fit"

(citation omitted). Malachi M. v. Quintina Q., 483 Mass. 725,

740 (2019).

The mother asserts that the trial judge erred by failing to

consider the history of domestic abuse by the father, the

parties' inability to co-parent due to their poor communication,

and issues arising from the father's alleged housing

arrangement. We discern no such error. After a hearing with

both parties, the trial judge determined that "no credible

evidence was presented by either party that the current schedule

has been adversely impacting the child and/or that is in the

best interests of the child to change the schedule" or award

either party sole custody. The factual finding regarding the

impact on the child was made after considering the abuse

prevention order that has been in place since joint legal

custody was ordered and the parties' substantial communication

issues and was not clearly erroneous. See Malachi M., 483 Mass.

at 739-740. We do not consider the mother's contentions with

respect to the father's alleged housing arrangement because they

5 were not raised below and "cannot be argued for the first time

on appeal." See Boss v. Leverett, 484. Mass. 553, 563 (2020).

Similarly, the trial judge's ultimate ruling that because

the parties "do not communicate well with one another" and

"neither like nor respect one another," "it [was] in the best

interests of the child that the parenting schedule including

holidays and vacations be clearly set forth, and, therefore,

modified" was grounded in the facts and within his discretion.

See Malachi M., 483 Mass. at 740.

Judgment dated December 4, 2024, affirmed.

By the Court (Desmond, Hershfang & Brennan, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: June 1, 2026.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.