subject: Massachusetts Child Custody Agreement Final Judgment Minor Child Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] DAVID E. HOPPE v. LUCY A. HASKINS
Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk
September 6, 1990
October 17, 1990
The father and mother and child entered an agreement that was incorporated into a final judgment that disposed of all issues between the parties and was agreed to by all parties and their counsel. Apparently dissatisfied with the final judgment the father sought relief under Mass. R. Dom. Re. P. 60. The trial court denied the request for relief from the consent order because it determined that the relief was not requested as in the best interest of the child.
Appellant father challenged a decision from the Probate and Family Court Department (Massachusetts), which denied his motion for relief from a consent judgment that involved appellee mother regarding custody of a minor child.
Issue:
Whether the trial court erred in denying the father Motion for relief from consent Judgment?
Discussion:
The Court finds that in this case the father seeks to remove the guardian and restore his custodial rights on the ground that he has changed his mind and that he has a right to do so. The arguments of the father fail to recognize the consequences of his having consented to the entry of the amended final judgment. The issue is not whether the judge abused her discretion in denying the father's rule 60 motion, but whether, given the claims of the father, the judge had any discretion at all to act on a rule 60 motion. "A court is powerless to enlarge or contract the dimensions of a true consent decree except upon (i) the parties' further agreement or (ii) litigation of newly-emergent issues." Neither exception is available here. The father's belated claim of a constitutional deprivation because of the absence of clear and convincing evidence as to his "unfitness" in the face of his decision to settle and not litigate is not worthy of discussion. The father's attempt to vacate judgments approved by the court, to which he consented with knowledge of all the relevant facts and with the benefit of experienced counsel, is conduct of which we cannot approve.
Hence the denial of the motion for relief from the amended final judgment is affirmed. The basis for our decision also disposes of the father's claims with regard to the report of the guardian ad litem as to which the order of the single justice of this court is affirmed.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Massachusetts Child Custody Agreement Final Judgment Minor Child Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
