## Facts

- Karina Schechter (mother) and Yan Schechter (father) married in 2002 in Massachusetts and had one child (born 2003).
- After a lengthy divorce trial, the judge found the father engaged in sustained emotional, economic, and physical abuse of the mother, and intimidating conduct toward the child, including threats and menacing behavior during custody exchanges.
- The divorce judgment awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody and suspended the father’s visitation for one year.
- The court also entered an abuse-prevention order barring the father from contact with the mother and child for the same one-year period.
- The judgment included a removal provision authorizing the mother to relocate the child from Massachusetts to New York “or another state” if better employment and security opportunities were available.
- The parties had a prenuptial agreement executed when the father had substantial assets and the mother was pregnant and not working; the trial court ruled it invalid as not fair and reasonable at execution.
- The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to the mother.

## Issues

1. Whether awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody and imposing a one-year suspension of the father’s visitation, together with a no-contact abuse-prevention order, was an abuse of discretion or contrary to the child’s best interests.
2. Whether the judgment’s broad, contingent removal provision complied with G.L. c. 208, § 30 and Massachusetts relocation standards.
3. Whether the trial court erred in invalidating the prenuptial agreement as not fair and reasonable at the time of execution.
4. Whether the attorney’s fee award to the mother was proper.

## Decision

- Affirmed the award of sole legal and physical custody to the mother.
- Affirmed the one-year suspension of the father’s visitation and the corresponding no-contact abuse-prevention order.
- Affirmed the ruling that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable because it was not fair and reasonable at execution.
- Affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to the mother.
- Vacated the removal provision and remanded for reconsideration after an evidentiary hearing focused on removal.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody and visitation determinations turn on the child’s best interests; trial-level factfinding in domestic relations cases receives substantial appellate deference.
- A court may suspend or restrict a parent’s visitation for a defined period when supported by detailed findings showing a risk to the child’s welfare, including findings of abuse and threats.
- Removal of a child from Massachusetts under G.L. c. 208, § 30 requires a fact-specific, contemporaneous best-interests analysis based on a concrete proposed relocation; advance, open-ended permission to move to unspecified destinations is improper.
- A Massachusetts prenuptial agreement must be fair and reasonable at the time of execution to be enforceable; extreme disparity in assets and bargaining position may support invalidation.
- Attorney’s fees in domestic relations matters may be awarded in the court’s equitable discretion based on financial circumstances and litigation equities.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Court upheld the trial court’s custody, no-contact, prenuptial invalidity, and attorney’s fee rulings based on supported findings of abuse and inequity, but required a remand because the judgment’s relocation authorization was too indefinite and lacked the evidentiary showing required for removal under Massachusetts law.


Schechter v. Schechter, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 239 (2015)