You are here: Home / Archives for Massachusetts Family Law

Mediation for Families

Mediation is a tool that can be invaluable to families. At Fields and Dennis, we are well-versed in all aspects of Family Law, and we often turn to mediation as an agreeable and less distressing means to an end.  There are many ways that mediation can benefit families at various stages of life. From divorce to estate planning and everything in between, mediation can be an indispensable tool to quell interfamilial tensions and disputes.

If this were a game of Family Feud (Instances a family may call upon a mediator…) ‘divorce’ and ‘estate planning’ may very well be the top two answers on the board, but there are a variety of times when the services of a mediator may benefit a family unit. Read More.

Case Law Updates from Family Mediation Quarterly, October 2013

Case Law Updates by Attorney Jonathan Fields from Family Mediation Quarterly, October 2013, including:

  • PC Agreement Held Enforceable.
  • Post-Retirement Alimony Obligations.

 

Read more.

MA Family Law: Inconsistency Standard v. Material Change of Circumstances

 

What standard must a Probate and Family Court use when faced with a modification of a child support order when the case is within the Child Support Guidelines?  The trial judge in this case dismissed the modification complaint because, although the ex-husband’s income had increased, she found there was not a “substantial and material change in circumstances.”  Notably, the judge’s decision did not mention the “inconsistency standard” in G.L. c.208, s.28 which states that a modification is appropriate “if there is an inconsistency between the amount of the existing order and the amount that would result from applying the Guidelines.”  Nevertheless, the Appeals Court affirmed her judgment.  The SJC, however, reversed; it held that the “inconsistency standard” rather than the “material change in circumstances” applies where modifications of child support within the Guidelines are concerned.  Morales v. Morales, 464 Mass. 507 (March 12, 2013)

MA Family Law: Imputing Income: Reasonable Efforts to Find Employment

 

The Probate and Family Court imputed income to an ex-wife based on her present ability to obtain employment.  On appeal, the Appeals Court reminds us that the test for imputing income is a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the person has a present ability to obtain a particular job and (2) whether the person exercised “reasonable efforts” in the job search.  Here, the trial court made no findings regarding the second requirement.  Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court for further fact finding on the “reasonable efforts” issue.  Ulin v. Polansky, 83 Mass.App.Ct. 303 (February 19, 2013)

Family Mediation Quarterly: President’s Letter

 

Dear Mediators:

The most recent professional development meeting, “Collaborative Law and Mediation Tools and Techniques: A Common Ground” was a product of the joint committee of the MCFM and the Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council chaired by our own Lynn Cooper.  The panelists, in addition to Lynn, were Dan Finn, Kate Fanger, Karen Levitt, and Lisa Smith.

The committee was created in order to foster close reciprocal relationships between the organizations – and we are succeeding.  As a result of the committee’s efforts, for example, we are now cross-promoting each other’s events.

Being trained in the two disciplines has informed the way I practice both.

What can Collaborative Law teach the mediator? Collaborative Law taught me to provide summary notes to the clients following each mediation.  Although some mediators have been doing this for years without any influence from Collaborative Law, it wasn’t until I was trained in Collaborative Law that I understood the effectiveness of this procedure. One of the panelists suggested discussing with mediation clients their goals for the process, a staple at the beginning of the first Collaborative meeting.  I haven’t done this yet but I’m considering it.

What can Mediation teach the Collaborative Practitioner? Mediation skills such as listening and reframing are critical for the Collaborative practitioner; in fact, I believe that every Collaborative Practitioner should be required to take a course in mediation.

In any event, I think all of us can agree that the communities have a lot to teach other.  I look forward to more of these joint ventures in the future.

 

From the Family Mediation Quarterly

 

MCFM President’s Letter: The Genius of Family

On September 13, as most of you know, MCFM marked an important milestone – our 30th anniversary. We honored the occasion with an event at the Endicott House in Dedham. Thanks to the organizers (in alphabetical order – Lynn Cooper, Barbara Kellman, Diane Spears, Laurie Udell, and Fran Whyman,) it was a well-attended and unqualified success. Quite a few of us talked briefly to the gathering and I was one of the speakers. Les Wallerstein, editor of FMQ, asked me to submit my talk for publication. I asked him if it could “count” as my President’s Letter for the quarter and he agreed. With that understanding, Les, here it is…
To read MCFM President Jonathan E. Fields blog post, please copy and paste the following link into your browser:

http://www.bostondivorceandmediationlawyers.com/2012/10/mcfm-presidents-letter-the-genius-of-family/

Jonathan E. Fields elected president of the MCFM

On May 1, Jonathan Fields was elected President of the Massachusetts Council on Family Mediation for a two-year term.  He is honored to have been chosen by his peers in an organization in which he has served as an Executive Board member since 2005.  The MCFM is a non-profit organization established over twenty-five years go by family mediators interested in sharing knowledge and setting guidelines for family mediation.

 

The Vineyard, Valuation, and Present Divisions

After a trial, a Probate and Family Law Court entered a divorce judgment (1) valuing the husband’s 25% interest in a Martha’s Vineyard property at 25% of the market value of the property and (2) awarding a present interest in that property to the wife.  The Appeals Court reversed.

On the issue of valuation, the appellate court noted that, while there was evidence of the market value of the entire Martha’s Vineyard property, there was no evidence as to the husband’s 25% interest – simply valuing it at 25% of market value was without basis.

Further, since the Court acknowledged that the husband’s interest was unlikely to be sold and unlikely to generate income for him, ordering the husband to make a present payment to his wife for $360,000 is “plainly wrong and excessive.”  While the law strongly favors present payments to “if, as, and when” payments, the law also recognizes that where a present division would cause an undue hardship to a party, it is inappropriate.  Elliott v. Elliott, 2011 Mass.App.Unpub. LEXIS 992 (September 6, 2011)

Counting Parenting Time (Even When the Kids are Sleeping)

In trying to equalize a parenting schedule, do you count “sleep time” and “school time” or only “awake time”?  In a modification action, a Probate and Family Court judge changed the parenting schedule without finding a change in circumstances on the theory that the percentage of “awake time” (time that the “children were not at school, camp, or awake”) spent with each parent was roughly equivalent to the previous schedule. The Appeals Court reversed, noting that the law has not “neatly divided custodial parenthood into waking, sleeping, and schooling categories.  Nor should it.  Disregarding sleep or school time ignores that children get sick, have nightmares, and otherwise require their parent’s assistance at unexpected times.”  Parents are always “on call,” the Appeals Court continued: “[t]he responsibilities of a parent do not end when a child is asleep, at school or day care, or otherwise outside of the parent’s presence.”  Katzman v. Healy, 77 Mass.App.Ct. 589

Contact Us

Please use the contact form below to email Fields and Dennis LLP.

    Your Name (required)

    Daytime phone (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Brief description of your legal issue:

    Sending a message to Fields and Dennis LLP does not constitute an Attorney Client relationship. Please review our Communication Policy before sending any messages.

    Location

    FIELDS AND DENNIS LLP
    80 William Street — Suite 210
    Wellesley, MA 02481 USA
    (T) 781.489.6776
    (F) 781.489.6233

    You can also find us on…

    Recent Blogs

    Recent Firm News & Coverage

    The Boston metro family law, divorce and estate planning attorneys at the law firm of Fields and Dennis LLP are based in the Newton Wellesley area and serve the city of Newton: Auburndale, Chestnut Hill, Newton Centre, Newton Corner, Newton Upper Falls, Newton Lower Falls, Nonantum, Oak Hill, Waban and West Newton and town of Wellesley: Babson Park, Wellesley Hills, Wellesley Square Fields and Dennis also serves many clients in the Greater Boston and Massachusetts region including Ashland, Dover, Holliston, Medfield, Needham, Sherborn, Westwood, and all of Massachusetts. Attorney Jonathan Fields is a recognized authority on bitcoin and divorce

    Copyright 2021 Fields and Dennis LLP

    Attorneys | Divorce Attorneys | Estate Planning Attorneys | Firm Overview |

    Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact | Pay Invoice