Divorce Mediation Blog

Wanted: An SJC Case to Challenge the “Real Advantage” Standard: Chief Justice Gants’ Compelling Concurrence in Miller v. Miller

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

Levine Dispute Resolution - Divorce Mediation

Concurrences are rare in family law cases, but when the Chief Justice writes a clear-eyed one with firm conviction, people take notice. C.J. Gants, with Associate Justice Gaziano joining him, did not take issue with majority’s decision, but rather the “analytical gymnastics” necessary to find it. They were right.

The source of the problem is less 1985’s Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannis, though that case alone has doomed the efforts of countless “non-custodial” parents to resist the removal of their children to other jurisdictions than the more problematic case of Mason v. Coleman (2006), or as the concurrence points out, the toxic intersection of the two cases.

It is Mason that undermined decades of effort in the Probate and Family Courts, and among its practitioners, to tone down the fight over custodial labels by fractious parties, by awarding access to the lower-bar “real advantage” removal test to parents with “sole physical custody”, setting up a two-stage fight in every potential removal case: first, does someone have sole physical custody (later modified to be a “functional” test rather than a legal label); and if so, are the childrens’ best interests driven by that individual parent’s personal needs?

It took the Miller case to put this problem into stark relief, presenting a matter where no labels, or functional findings, could have attached previously, since it was the time of divorce. Thus the court had to conclude, based on the messy life of an intact family, who would have been hypothetically denominated the physical custodian. A fiction on top of a fiction – and one that Judge Gants persuasively argues ought to end.

Whether the Mason problem is a product of a fundamental mis-perception of Yannis may be beside the point that both the Miller majority and concurring justice make: that the best interests of the child is meant to be the overarching inquiry for every removal case. For too long practitioners have accurately read the trial court’s predominant “read” of Yannis, namely, that the primary caregiver’s personal needs pretty much trump further inquiry, absent spousal spite, or a child who is too young to yet be bonded to the parent who would be left behind in Massachusetts.

Justice Gants’ point: artificial jousting over the label, or even the “functional” reality of primary caregiving, is too often confounded by informal parenting histories, by self-serving constructs and by too little historical precedent (as in Miller); and it does not serve the ultimate policy of finding and enhancing children’s outcomes via a straight up best interests inquiry. Rather, the exercise can range from pointless to damaging, by obscuring the true issues.

Justice Gants is also right that a primary care parent’s individual needs and interests cannot, and should not, be ignored. The certainly can be critical to a child’s interest; just not always so, and as often, not conclusively. We hope that the opportunity arises for the SJC majority to follow its Chief, as they may have signaled in Miller already, acknowledging but deferring the issue to another day and case, wherein one of the parties directly challenges, briefs and argues the issue on appeal.

We hope that that opportunity comes soon.

Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


medical benefits special master COLA annulment divorce litigation lawyers Massachusetts lawyers conciliation Chouteau Levine Baseball Cohabitation alimony reform legislation General term alimony Major League Baseball Arbitration Uniform Arbitration Act divorce arbitration child support traditional negotiations arbitrator Divorce The Seven Sins of Alimony Child Support Guidelines divorce arbitrator MLB labor agreement Baseball Players alimony Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC alimony law mediators disputes divorced support orders med-arb Matrimonial Arbitration family law arbitrators DOMA Massachusetts SJC family support facilitated negotiations LDRC Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act arbitration Massachusetts divorce lawyers divorce arbitrators Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth family mediation divorce process dispute resolution Levine Dispute Resolution Center family and probate law disputes health insurance Massachusetts divorce mediators how baseball arbitration works divorce judgment divorce lawyers family law arbitrator alimony statute health coverage divorce mediation divorce agreement divorce and family law Boston lawyer-attended mediation mediations med/arb alimony orders pre-ARA alimony separation family law mediation private dispute resolution Defense of Marriage Act Self-adjusting alimony orders IRC §2704 mediator divorce and family law mediators Levine Dispute Resolutions high-risk methodology fraud Massachusetts alimony and child support Obamacare family law mediation Alimony Reform Act Baseball Arbitration divorce mediator resolve disputes Same Sex Marriage Massachusetts alimony self-adjusting alimony Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly arbitrators rehabilitative alimony Levine Dispute Resolution lawyer divorce mediations litigation Family Law Arbitration divorce mediators Divorce Agreements