Appeals court considers parent’s move‑away order and whether judge misweighed best interests

The panel heard argument in an impounded removal appeal in which appellant counsel Karen Stuntz, representing the mother, asked the court to reverse part of a decision that allowed the father to relocate the child to Texas. Stuntz urged that the superior court relied overly on historical findings (including a 2018 judgment) while failing to weigh contemporaneous evidence about employment, travel costs, school placements, and the best interests of the child.

Stuntz called attention to factual findings she described as significant: the judge’s characterization of the father’s conduct as ‘alienating,’ instances of contempt and conflict with school officials, and the judge’s reliance on prior orders while discrediting aspects of the mother’s testimony and the GAL report. She argued the record did not support a finding that the father had a sincere employment motive for moving and that crucial documentation — job offers, school enrollment details and travel costs — was missing.

Opposing counsel disputed that the record compelled reversal. They pointed to documentary exhibits, flight‑cost records, and testimony the trial judge credited that supported benefits to the child (housing, school opportunities) and argued the judge was within discretion to balance competing factors and prioritize the child’s interests.

The justices probed issues of credibility, DCF and GAL findings, whether the trial court had improperly discounted certain evidence, and the practicality of travel and contact between Texas and Massachusetts. After extended questioning the court took the matter under advisement.