IS JOINT CUSTODY ALWAYS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD?
This is an appeal by Yaroslav Kyrpych (Father) from a judgement of modification which awarded Carolyn Gannon Kyrpych (Mother) sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children and granted father supervised parenting time. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Factual Background: The parties were married November 2014 and have two children together. After the parties separated, Father moved to Ukraine. The parties divorced April 2022 and their separation agreement stated (1) Mother had sole legal custody; (2) Mother’s residence was be the children’s primary residence; and (3) the parties were to transition to shared legal and physical custody once father returned to the United States and established residency.
Father returned to Massachusetts in August 2022, and Mother filed a complaint for modification seeking sole legal and physical custody of the children in October 2022. A Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) was appointed to assess and make recommendations regarding custody, domestic violence, and a parenting plan. The GAL suggested mother having sole legal custody and establishing a parenting plan that would increase Father’s parenting time slowly by starting with family therapy and escalating to supervised parenting time with Father.
After trial, Mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children as the judge found that Father “having any form of custody would be detrimental to the children because he fails to appreciate how his conduct affects them and furthermore seeks to minimize his own responsibility when his conduct harms them”. Father was granted supervised parenting time and the “ability to review and access the children’s records and providers absent any decision-making authority”.
Discussion and Analysis: Father sought to appeal this modification, but the court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court emphasized that to obtain a custody modification, one must establish that a material and substantial change in circumstance has occurred, and that a change to the current custody arrangement is in the child’s best interests. Father argued that it is in the best interest of children to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, but the court supported the judge’s decision to consider how the parties’ strained relationship and inability to communicate effects their ability to jointly parent.
Father also contended that sexual abuse allegations had shaped the custody outcome and that the judge misrepresented and often mischaracterized the evidence. The judge stated that the children’s allegations were not given weight due to their lack of credibility and the court agreed that the judge is afforded considerable freedom to identify which factors are given weight when assessing the welfare of children. When deciding that awarding custody to Father was not in the best interest of the children, the judge considered Father’s own behaviors and actions such as interfering with one child’s therapeutic relationship, exhibiting rigidity regarding the children’s health, failing to communicate within Mother’s stated boundaries, and not taking responsibility for conduct that harmed the children. The court held that the judge was in the best position to assess the witnesses’ credibility and to evaluate the evidence.
This matter demonstrates that although the law favors meaningful relationships with both parents where appropriate, custody decisions must be made in line with the child’s best interests. Persistent parental conflict, inability to co-parent, interference with a child’s treatment, and a parent’s lack of insight into the effects of their conduct may support sole custody and supervised parenting time.