## Facts

- The parties divorced in 2016 after a long-term marriage of about 21 years and had three children.
- During the marriage, the father was the primary wage earner (physician’s assistant) and the mother was primarily a homemaker and caregiver; she had prior work experience as a teacher.
- In a postdivorce modification action, both parties sought changes to child support, and the mother sought an award of alimony for the first time.
- The Probate and Family Court recalculated child support and denied alimony, concluding that G.L. c. 208, § 53(c)(2) barred alimony because the same income had been used to calculate child support.
- The parties appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether G.L. c. 208, § 53(c)(2) prohibits concurrent awards of alimony and child support when both are based on the payor’s income.
2. What method a judge must use to determine appropriate alimony and child support when both forms of support are at issue.
3. How “gross income” should be identified for child-support purposes, including the treatment of certain employment-related benefits and income components.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court held that § 53(c)(2) does not bar concurrent awards of child support and alimony.
- The Court concluded the trial judge misinterpreted the statute and abused discretion by denying alimony without conducting the required, fact-specific analysis.
- The Court required a mandatory three-step framework to evaluate combined support orders when alimony and child support are contemplated.
- The Court vacated the portions of the judgment denying alimony and related support calculations and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its framework.
- The Court also provided guidance on what must be included as “gross income” for child-support purposes and corrected errors in the trial court’s income treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Child support and alimony serve different purposes: child support is for children’s maintenance, while alimony supports an economically dependent former spouse.
- G.L. c. 208, § 53(c)(2) permits, and does not categorically preclude, concurrent awards of alimony and child support.
- When both alimony and child support are at issue, judges must apply a comparative three-step method:
  - Calculate alimony first (using § 53(a) factors and recipient need), then calculate child support using post-alimony incomes.
  - Calculate child support first, then calculate alimony to the extent possible under § 53(a).
  - Compare the resulting orders (including tax consequences) and enter the order that is most equitable for the family, consistent with § 53(a) factors and the policy favoring full support of children under G.L. c. 208, § 28.
- A judge must explain the reasoning for selecting between the two calculation sequences, including when declining to award alimony, in a manner that reflects the statutory factors and governing policy.
- “Gross income” for child-support purposes is construed broadly; courts must carefully evaluate income components and certain employment benefits to avoid understating ability to pay.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court rejected a categorical bar on alimony whenever child support is ordered, required a structured three-step comparison to craft equitable combined support orders, and remanded after finding the trial court’s alimony denial and related support determinations rested on legal error and insufficient statutory analysis.


Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 490 Mass. 398 (2022)