Attorney Who Represents Fathers Attends Meeting of Probate Judges

January 2003 Print Edition
By Curt Lovelace

An attorney who represents fathers, Rinaldo Del Gallo, attended a meeting of all the Probate Judges in Western Massachusetts at the end of the year and filed this report with the members of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition, which he heads.

I went to listen to a panel of all the Probate Court Judges of Western Massachusetts today.
It was run by Western Mass. Pro Bono, a group of people that don't discriminate against men, they "just represent the custodial parent," which 99.9% of the time is the mother. (O.K., it's probably like 97% of the time.)

Still it was a learning experience and it is always helpful to hear how the judges think.

The event was at the luxurious and colonial North Hampton Inn, just across the street from the Court House, in Northampton, Massachusetts. It is a magnificent edifice, unlike the Probate Court across the street, which is a basically a box designed by an architect that had a T-square and three minutes. I have seen porta-potties with more style than North Hampton's Probate Court. So much for the tall, marble centerpiece of town of our forefathers.

Some General Points. Divorced fathers, unlike non-divorced fathers, under the present statute will almost always have to pay for college expenses. Maybe forcing Dads to pay for college is not a bad thing. But why not force all Dads? Why just divorced ones? And, shouldn't people be able to make sure they don't die in an alley before they dump $100,000 into their child's education? Anyone ever heard of state school? You should love your mother. You shouldn't pass a law to make me love my mother. Some things should be just left to the heart - and whether to pay for college is one of them.

Yes, there is case law that holds that somehow this does not violate the equal
protection clause. (Please don't ask for the case. I know it's out there.)

One judge talked about how it is a "myth" that 209A restraining orders are loosely and freely given. All you Dads out there are so mistaken. After all, the judge pointed out, the women have to show "reasonable fear." Isn't that a great safeguard? Seriously, all of you know they always claim fear and they are always believed. Anyone who is dumb enough to ask for a restraining order "because he seems strange" or "quirky" probably isn't worth protecting anyhow.

There was some discussion about the role of temporary orders - you have to give some out - the wait is often too long. So when you men filed a complaint for a modification, which will take many, many, many months, you might want to file a motion for a temporary order in the mean time. (This is good for those Dads that lost their jobs and need immediate relief from child support.)

On other fronts, Judge Gail Perlman said to make sure that when you are
seeking a motion for reconsideration (after you naturally lost your custody case), make sure you comply with the standing orders - they don't want to read more than 5 pages. Lots of stress on the point that if the woman commits adultery and generally acts like a jerk, it will not affect alimony.

Judge Marie Lyons went over the Blitz case. In Blitz, the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ruled that even though the United States Court decided in Troxel v. Granville that you can't get grandparent visitation simply because a court deems it to be in the child's best interest, a Massachusetts statute that held that you can have grandparent visitation if it is in the child's best interest was constitutional. Go figure. Judge Lyons didn't mention the dissent: my opinion, IF IF IF this case gets certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, it gets overturned.

Also - and my clients are so poor that this is usually not an issue - Massachusetts is not a 50/50 alimony state (like most) and we are one of 15 that has "equitable distribution." This basically means, since mom got the kids and child support, it is only "equitable" that she gets the house to raise the kids. On an encouraging note . . . just kidding . . . there was no encouraging note.

Interesting note. 20 years ago the court was 60% probate, 40% family law. Now it is 60% family law, 40% probate. (Probate is wills and estates, for those that do not know.) Yes, instead of shared parenting to reduce litigation - you guessed it - they want more money.

Oh, I had pause to consider the great mystery of life. Why is Northampton one word and East Hampton two? Why not North Hampton or Easthampton?