Massachusetts Child Custody Agreement

It depends on whether you were married. For divorcing parents, the final paragraph of G.L. c. 208, s. 31 provides that where the parents have reached an agreement the court may enter an order in accordance with it, unless specific findings are made that such an order would not be in the best interests of the children. The court is not obliged to approve the agreement, but it cannot depart from it without articulating findings. For parents who were never married, G.L. c. 209C, s. 10(a) provides that the court shall award joint custody only if the parents have entered into an agreement under s. 11 or the court finds they have already exercised joint responsibility successfully and can communicate and plan together, so the agreement is what opens the door to joint custody at all.

Yes. In a joint petition for divorce under G.L. c. 208, s. 1A the court must find within thirty days of the hearing whether the agreement has made proper provisions for custody, for support and maintenance, for alimony and for the disposition of marital property, and only on an affirmative finding does it approve the agreement and enter a judgment of divorce nisi. For unmarried parents, G.L. c. 209C, s. 11(b) provides that an agreement filed with and approved by the court has the same force and effect as a judgment, so its force comes from approval rather than from signature.

Yes, and Massachusetts says so in the statute rather than leaving it to be inferred. G.L. c. 208, s. 31 states that the court may reject a shared custody implementation plan and issue a sole legal and physical custody award to either parent. G.L. c. 209C, s. 11(b) provides that an agreement on custody or visitation shall be approved only if the court finds it to be in the best interests of the child, and preserves the court's power to investigate the facts as if no agreement had been filed. Under c. 208, s. 1A the consequence of non-approval is unusual: if the court does not approve the agreement as executed or as modified by agreement of the parties, the agreement becomes null and void and of no further effect between the parties and the action is treated as dismissed without prejudice.

Only on one of two conditions. G.L. c. 209C, s. 10(a) provides that the court shall award joint custody only if the parents have entered into an agreement under s. 11, or the court finds that the parents have successfully exercised joint responsibility for the child prior to the action and have the ability to communicate and plan with each other concerning the child's best interests. The same subsection directs the court to preserve the relationship with the primary caretaker parent so far as possible, and to consider where and with whom the child has resided in the preceding six months and whether each parent has established a personal and parental relationship or exercised parental responsibility.

There is no general list. G.L. c. 208, s. 31 states the standard in one line: the rights of the parents shall, in the absence of misconduct, be held to be equal, and the happiness and welfare of the children shall determine their custody. The section adds a single directed consideration, whether the child's present or past living conditions adversely affect the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health. Two narrow lists exist, one that applies only to whether temporary shared legal custody would not be in the child's best interest and one in G.L. c. 209C, s. 10(a) for nonmarital children, but neither governs a general custody determination, so a numbered factor checklist from another state does not describe Massachusetts law.

Both, depending on which statute applies. G.L. c. 208, s. 31 defines four terms for divorce cases and all of them use shared: sole legal custody, shared legal custody, sole physical custody and shared physical custody. G.L. c. 209C, s. 10(a) covers the same ground for unmarried parents and uses joint custody. Massachusetts also has no parenting plan, since the statutory instrument is the shared custody implementation plan, and it calls a move out of state removal rather than relocation. Matching the vocabulary of the chapter that applies keeps the document consistent with the judgment it will become.

It is the document G.L. c. 208, s. 31 requires at trial where custody is contested and either party seeks shared legal or shared physical custody. It sets out the details of shared custody including the child's education, the child's health care, procedures for resolving disputes about child-raising decisions and duties, and the periods of time during which each party will have the child reside or visit, including holidays and vacations, or the procedure by which those periods are determined. The list is open rather than exhaustive. Parents who have already agreed generally do not file one separately, because an executed agreement submitted for the court's approval that addresses the details of shared custody is deemed to constitute a shared custody implementation plan. The court may accept a plan, may issue a modified plan of its own, or may reject the plan, and a plan the court issues or accepts becomes part of the judgment.

No. G.L. c. 208, s. 1A lets the parties choose whether the agreement is merged into the judgment or incorporated but not merged so that it survives as an independent contract, and that election is real for other subjects. It does not protect custody. G.L. c. 208, s. 28 allows the court to modify an earlier custody judgment on a finding of a material and substantial change in circumstances and that modification is necessary in the best interests of the child. Custody terms cannot be made permanent by drafting.

Massachusetts calls this removal and G.L. c. 208, s. 30 makes it a consent or leave of court question rather than a notice and objection process. For a minor child of divorced parents who is a native of, or has resided five years within, the commonwealth, the child shall not be removed out of the commonwealth without the child's own consent if the child is of suitable age to give it, or without the consent of both parents if the child is not, unless the court upon cause shown otherwise orders. There is no notice period, no mileage figure and no allocation of the burden anywhere in the section, and the trigger is the state line rather than a distance. The section by its terms covers children of divorced parents, and c. 209C has no removal provision, so parents who were never married should get advice on their own position before moving.