Appeals court reviews child-custody ruling that transferred primary custody to father; mother challenges reliance on probation-office interviews and retroactive

Caroline Hill’s appellate counsel argued the trial court made multiple errors when it modified custody and awarded child support in Hill v. Del Plateau (24P744). Counsel told the panel that the record shows Sofia — the child at issue — was "happy, healthy, well adjusted" in her mother’s care and that the judge improperly relied on a brief probation-office interview and the child’s uncorroborated statements as substantive support for changing primary physical custody to the father.

Appellate counsel identified four principal errors: (1) undue weight to the child’s stated preference in a short probation-office interview; (2) use of the child’s hearsay statements as substantive evidence to meet the father’s burden; (3) failure to analyze the harm that shifting primary custody would impose on the mother–child bond; and (4) speculative findings about future harm. Counsel also challenged the child-support computation as retroactive and based on an annualized travel‑nurse allowance the mother said was temporary and not reflective of the period the award covered.

The father and his counsel defended the judge’s decision as a practical solution to repeated moves and cross-jurisdiction issues and emphasized the judge’s findings that the child was thriving in school and activities. The Appeals Court asked whether the relocation of the mother to Massachusetts since the ruling rendered aspects of the appeal moot and whether a pending modification action might be a more appropriate forum for some contested issues. The panel took argument and will issue a written decision.