## Facts

- The parties married in 1995 and had two children (born 2000 and 2001).
- A 2006 divorce judgment incorporated a separation agreement granting joint legal custody and sole physical custody to the mother, with the father having specified parenting time.
- The agreement set monthly child support based on the father’s base income “exclusive of bonuses,” and separately required a percentage payment from any cash bonus.
- After the divorce, the father’s income and the parties’ overall wealth rose substantially.
- The mother left her job, remarried, and sought (1) increased child support and (2) permission to relocate with the children to New York or Connecticut.
- The father opposed relocation and sought increased parenting time and physical custody.
- The Probate and Family Court denied relocation, increased child support, and expanded the father’s parenting time to essentially equal time.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court could effectively convert the mother’s sole physical custody into de facto shared physical custody by dramatically increasing the father’s parenting time without findings of a substantial and material change in circumstances.
2. Whether denial of relocation was error where the mother had sole physical custody and the court discounted that status and blurred the distinct relocation standards for sole-custody and shared-custody cases.
3. Whether the child-support modification was an abuse of discretion by (a) using the father’s base salary (excluding bonuses) to calculate support and (b) declining retroactivity to the notice date of the modification complaint.

## Decision

- The court reversed the parenting-time modification to the extent it effectively transformed sole physical custody into de facto joint physical custody without required findings, and remanded.
- The court vacated the denial of relocation and remanded for reconsideration under the correct relocation framework that accounts for the mother’s status as sole physical custodian.
- The court affirmed the child-support modification, including use of base salary and the denial of retroactivity.

## Legal Principles

- A custody or parenting-time modification requires findings of a substantial and material change in circumstances; a court may not functionally convert sole physical custody to shared physical custody through parenting-time adjustments without such findings and a best-interests analysis consistent with the existing custody allocation.
- Relocation analysis depends on the existing physical-custody arrangement: when a parent has sole physical custody, the relocation inquiry must apply the sole-custody framework (including consideration of a “real advantage” to the custodial parent) and then assess the children’s best interests; applying a shared-custody approach in a sole-custody case is error.
- Child-support modification is discretionary and may follow the parties’ separation agreement’s income definitions (including treatment of bonuses separately), while recognizing that children are entitled to share in their parents’ improved standard of living; retroactivity is not required.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Court required remand for proper findings and standards on parenting time and relocation because the trial court discounted the mother’s sole physical custody and failed to support a de facto custody shift with a substantial-change finding, but it upheld the child-support increase as a permissible exercise of discretion consistent with the parties’ agreement and the children’s right to share in the parents’ enhanced lifestyle.


Katzman v. Healy, 933 N.E.2d 156 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010)