Appeals court reviews parenting‑time decision after judge cited mother’s alcohol history and employment concerns

The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard an appeal by a mother who argued the trial judge erred by denying equal shared parenting time and instead retaining the pretrial temporary schedule.

Appellant counsel Pascual DeSantis said the court undervalued the full record of the mother’s recovery efforts, including completion of an outpatient program and thousands of negative monitoring tests, and therefore failed to assess the child’s best interest neutrally. “The judge focused on the alcohol and the unemployment,” DeSantis told the panel, urging that absent a finding the mother’s conduct harmed the child, the court should have implemented shared parenting.

Opposing counsel Candace Labbe, for the father, said the trial judge had broad discretion to resolve credibility questions and to prioritize the child’s stability. Labbe pointed to numerous findings where the judge credited the father’s testimony about his increasing parenting responsibilities and stressed the need for caution because the mother had testified she intended to accept imminent full‑time work — a change the judge said could create an untested stressor in the parenting arrangement.

The justices probed how judges should weigh parental recovery and stability against the child’s existing routines and asked whether the trial judge’s reference to the mother’s obtaining full‑time employment operates as a de facto condition on seeking modification. The panel also discussed how courts evaluate credibility, and whether the trial judge sufficiently explained why a change from the temporary schedule would not serve the child’s best interests.

Both parties pressed appellate standards: mother argued the judge ignored favorable evidence and misapplied best‑interest factors; father asked the court to defer to the trial judge’s credibility calls. The justices indicated they would review the record and findings carefully and issue a written decision.