CPF Newsletter

Stay informed on our latest news!

Manage my subscriptions

Donate to CPF here!
Help us do more...


We are a tax exempt 501(c)3 organization.


       Help support
The Fatherhood Coalition
        by using our
     Amazon Smile
donation account when
making purchases at

medium_Amazon smile icon.jpg

Ever wonder how that
Massachusetts judge
who took your children
away and stripped you
of your house and assets
got to sit on the bench?
All judges were approved,
usually by unanimous,
vote, by the Governors
Council at a public hearing.
The audio for their
hearings over the last
couple of years can be heard here:

Courtesy of Patrick McCabe


A must-read:
'The Fraud of Feminism'

A younger Tolkien

J.R.R.Tolkien, author
of 'Lord of the Rings',
on Marriage

User login

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Home | Blogs | JoeU's blog

New SJC Court, Same Old Story.

Patrick McCabe

January 13, 2018

Massachusettts has a completely new Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), with all but two of the members being appointed by the current governor.  Justice Gants, and Justice Lenk being the only hold overs from the prior administration

However a new court does not mean the old problems have gone away as one might hope, a recent decision has shown that it’s a new court with the same old problems.  In particular there is a profound bias against shared physical custody.  As has been the case in the past the justices can never explain why they feel compelled to behave in this manner.

The recent case involves  a move away case, where one parent wishes to move from Massachusetts and the other parent opposes the move. 

The court’s discussion of this matter revolves around their own fabricated fallacy, that a move must be accompanied with taking custody away from one parent.  When the Fatherhood Coalition hears of a case where a move away is allowed, we always start with the following advice: go with the move, move to were your children are.  Although the court is well aware of this type of advice and well aware of what people do in response to a move away, they have always focused on taking custody away from one parent when a move away occurs, and they have NEVER explained why.

In the recent decision (Miller vs. Miller) the court focuses on taking custody away from one parent rather than explaining why the other parent should be allowed to leave the state when the other parent does not agree.

It appears that the court could have allowed the mother to remove their child from Massachusetts and then see what happens, with the case probably moving to a new jurisdiction; instead the court chose to stick it to another family and took custody away from one parent, without any explanation.

The SJC has not taken on a child custody case from the Family and Probate Court in some time, Adams vs Adams  2011 is the last one that comes to mind so one might wonder why now.

It should be also noted that the SJC took this case sua sponte, they took it of their own accord rather than allow it to go through the regular process.  If they were actually concerned if they were making the correct decision they could have asked for amicus briefs (there is a program for that)

We have been dealing with an openly biased court for 40 years, since divorce laws changed.  It doesn’t look like that is going to change anytime soon.

If you wish to retain custody of your children, contact us BEFORE you take it to court.  We can inform you of the process, and what NOT to do.  We believe in what we do, we are not trying to soak anyone for money.  We are not lawyers, we are better than that