## Facts

- Divorced parents shared joint legal and joint physical custody of two minor children under a decree requiring roughly equal parenting time.
- The parents agreed to live within a set distance of a Massachusetts town, with the children attending school in the mother’s Massachusetts district.
- Both parents later lived in Massachusetts; the father then moved to New Hampshire about seventeen miles from the mother.
- The mother sought to relocate with the children to New Hampshire; the father objected, citing continuity and school quality concerns.
- The children were doing well in a highly regarded Massachusetts school system; the proposed New Hampshire district was found inferior.
- The father sought sole physical custody and a temporary order preventing removal from Massachusetts; the mother counterclaimed for sole physical custody and permission to relocate.
- The Probate and Family Court temporarily enjoined removal, then after trial denied relocation and continued joint custody.

## Issues

1. What standard governs a request to remove children from Massachusetts under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 30 when divorced parents share joint legal and joint physical custody.
2. Whether denying the mother’s request to relocate the children out of state violated her constitutional right to interstate travel.

## Decision

- The court held that, in joint legal and joint physical custody cases, “cause shown” under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 30 requires a showing that removal is in the children’s best interests, considering all circumstances; the “real advantage” approach used in sole-custody cases does not control.
- The court affirmed the trial judge’s finding that removal to New Hampshire was not in the children’s best interests and found no abuse of discretion or legal error.
- The court rejected the constitutional claim because the order restricted removal of the children, not the mother’s ability to move herself, and a parent has no constitutional right to relocate a child contrary to the child’s best interests as judicially determined.
- Any challenged evidentiary rulings did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 30, a minor child may not be removed from Massachusetts without both parents’ consent unless the court orders otherwise upon “cause shown.”
- Where parents share joint legal and joint physical custody, “cause shown” is satisfied only by proving removal serves the children’s best interests based on all relevant circumstances.
- The “real advantage” analysis developed for removal requests by a sole physical custodian is not the governing framework when neither parent is the primary physical custodian.
- A removal order based on the children’s best interests does not violate a parent’s constitutional right to interstate travel when the parent remains free to relocate without the children.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of a mother’s request to relocate children out of Massachusetts where the parents shared joint legal and physical custody, holding that removal requires a best-interests showing and that restricting the children’s relocation, without restricting the parent’s movement, does not violate the constitutional right to interstate travel.


Mason v. Coleman, 850 N.E.2d 513 (Mass. 2006)