Custody of Vaughn

664 N.E.2d 434 (1996)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Custody of Vaughn

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
664 N.E.2d 434 (1996)

  • Written by Haley Gintis, JD

Facts

In 1977, Leslie (defendant) and Ross (plaintiff) became romantically involved. Ross moved into Leslie’s home, which Leslie shared with her two children. Ross was physically and emotionally abusive toward Leslie and the children. On several occasions, Leslie was violent toward Ross as well and taunted him for not meeting her sexual demands. Leslie and Ross later had a son together, Vaughn. Until Vaughn reached the age of five, Leslie was his primary caregiver. Ross then became more involved in Vaughn’s life. Ross monitored Vaughn’s progress in school and participated in his extracurricular activities. In 1985, Ross quit drinking alcohol and was prescribed Lithium to stabilize his mood. However, Ross frequently stopped taking his medication, which worsened his abusive behavior. At times, Ross would threaten Leslie to take Vaughn away from her as a way to ensure that she stayed in the relationship. He also often abused Leslie in Vaughn’s presence. On October 1, 1992, Leslie obtained a protective order against Ross. On October 2, Ross filed for custody of Vaughn. Leslie and Ross entered a temporary agreement providing that they would share legal and physical custody of Vaughn until a more permanent custody determination was reached. In July 1993, the court held a custody hearing, during which evidence was introduced regarding Ross’s abusive behavior. During the hearing, Vaughn’s guardian ad litem and clinical psychologist shared his recommendation that Leslie and Ross should receive joint custody but that Vaughn’s permanent home should be with Ross. The court awarded joint legal custody to Leslie and Ross and, in accordance with the recommendation, awarded Ross primary physical custody. Leslie appealed. The appellate court reversed on the ground that the court had erred by not considering Ross’s abusive acts and the impact the abuse had on Vaughn. The matter was appealed again.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Fried, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership