Statutory custody standards with specified mandatory considerations, rather than one comprehensive numbered factor list. Section 56 limits reliance on certain out-of-state laws and findings concerning gender-affirming health care, subject to its Massachusetts-law exception. It also requires consideration of likely disruption or cessation of care in the stated circumstances when a court alters custody, parenting time or visitation. It is not a general enumerated custody factor.
Statutory standards; no single comprehensive numbered factor list
Factor structure
No single comprehensive numbered list. Sections 208:31 and 31A require specified custody considerations, including living conditions and abuse; § 209C:10(a) requires residence and parent-child relationship considerations in nonmarital custody.
"irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" (§§ 1A, 1B)
Other grounds and proof conditions
Seven additional statutory grounds: adultery, impotency, one-year utter desertion, gross and confirmed intoxication, cruel and abusive treatment, gross or wanton refusal to provide suitable support, and the § 2 ground of sentence to confinement for life or five years or more. Section 2 was omitted from the original inventory.
Separation
None. No living-apart ground
Timing
Section 1A: judgment nisi 30 days after initial approval of the agreement; § 21 ordinarily makes it absolute 90 days after entry. Within that period, on a party’s application and for sufficient cause, the court may otherwise order. Section 1B: generally no hearing before six months after filing, then the § 21 nisi-to-absolute period; conversion to § 1A and the statutory procedures prevent a universal nine-month rule.
Court-made relocation factors. On the moving parent. No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required.
Authority
G.L. c. 208, s. 30 (Yannas, Mason)
Court test
judicial relocation factors
Burden classification
burden on the relocating parent
Notice classification
no
Trigger classification
out-of-state and some disruptive in-state moves
Effect of silence
no (consent or court order required)
What the court weighs
Four case-law inquiries. Sole physical custody: Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704 (1985), 'real advantage' (good, sincere reason) then best interests, applied whether parents are divorced, separated or never married (Smith v. McDonald, 2010). Shared physical custody: Mason v. Coleman, 447 Mass. 177 (2006), best interests with no real-advantage step, described in Smith as 'more protective of the interests of the parent who is not relocating.' No prior order: Miller v. Miller, 478 Mass. 642 (2018), functional analysis to classify as sole or shared, then the matching test. Out-of-state non-custodial parent seeking custody and removal: E.K. v. S.C., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 403 (2020). Yannas does not apply. The judge first finds whether that parent's original out-of-State move was meant to interfere with the in-State parent's relationship or to set up a custody change. If not, the judge asks whether that parent is rooted in the new community, which may count as a real advantage. The best-interest analysis then follows, and the requesting parent must first show a material and substantial change.
Who carries the burden
Yannas puts the real-advantage showing on the custodial parent seeking removal. Under Mason, where physical custody is shared, removal 'upon cause shown' means a showing that removal is in the children's best interests, with no real-advantage step. The Court quoted with approval the view that a true joint custodian proposing a move should have to prove best interest. In the E.K. posture the parent seeking modification must show a material and substantial change. No shifting found.
Notice and safety exceptions
No statutory notice period. Section 30 requires the consent of both parents (or the child's, if of suitable age) or a court order 'upon cause shown' before a covered child is removed from the Commonwealth.
Which moves trigger the rule
Statute: removal out of Massachusetts of a minor child of divorced parents who is a native of, or has resided five years in, the Commonwealth and over whose custody a probate court has jurisdiction. Extended by case law to nonmarital children once there are two legal parents (Smith v. McDonald, 458 Mass. 540 (2010)), and to long-distance in-state moves that would significantly disrupt existing parenting arrangements (Altomare v. Altomare, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 601, 602-603 (2010), a 75-mile in-state move, applying the rule of D.C. v. J.S., 58 Mass. App. Ct. 351, 355-356 (2003), 'not routinely' but where the move would significantly disrupt the other parent's time and the parents cannot agree, also Smith n.13). Before paternity is established, the mother may move freely (Smith).
Objections and the effect of silence
None in the statute. Without the other parent's consent, the parent seeking removal petitions the court. A parent who moves without consent or order can be ordered to return. Silence is not addressed.
The modification threshold
Section 30 is a leave-to-remove inquiry with no material-change gate. Where removal is sought through a custody modification (e.g., the E.K. setting), the requesting party must first show 'a material and substantial change in circumstance' and that the change is in the child's best interests (E.K., 97 Mass. App. Ct. at 408, as quoted in Hill v. Del Plato, Mass. App. Ct. 2025). Whether a proposed move alone meets that test was not found.
Other qualifications
The removal statute reaches only children of divorced parents leaving the state, yet case law extends it to nonmarital children and long in-state moves, and the test changes with the custody arrangement across four inquiries.
Burden summary
On the moving parent
Notice summary
No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required
