Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannasgreen2 sentences2026To satisfy the real advantage test, the custodial parent must demonstrate "a good, sincere reason for wanting to remove to another jurisdiction." Yannas, 395 Mass. at 711 . 2025"To satisfy the real advantage test, the custodial parent must demonstrate 'a good, sincere reason for wanting to remove to another jurisdiction' and 'the soundness of the reason for moving, and the . . . absence of a motive to deprive the noncustodial parent of reasonable visitation.'" Id. at 604 , quoting Yannas, 395 Mass. at 711 . | 2 | 9 |
Altomare v. Altomaregreen2 sentences2025"To satisfy the real advantage test, the custodial parent must demonstrate 'a good, sincere reason for wanting to remove to another jurisdiction' and 'the soundness of the reason for moving, and the . . . absence of a motive to deprive the noncustodial parent of reasonable visitation.'" Id. at 604 , quoting Yannas, 395 Mass. at 711 . 2025"To satisfy the real advantage test, the custodial parent must demonstrate 'a good, sincere reason for wanting to remove to another jurisdiction' and 'the soundness of the reason for moving, and the . . . absence of a motive to deprive the noncustodial parent of reasonable visitation.'" Altomare v. Altomare, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 601, 604 (2010), quoting Yannas, supra at 711 . | 2 | 3 |
Murray v. Supergreen2 sentences2026"Second, if the real advantage test is satisfied, the judge must consider whether the move is in the best interests of the children." Murray, supra. The mother argues that the trial judge erred in finding (a) that the father had a sincere motive to remove the child from Massachusetts to Texas and (b) that relocation was in the child's best interests. 5 a. 2016“To satisfy the real advantage test, the custodial parent must demonstrate ‘the soundness of the reason for moving, and the . . . absence of a motive to deprive the noncustodial parent of reasonable visitation.’ ” Murray, supra, quoting from Yannas, supra. Here, the judge concluded that the move to Florida would provide a real advantage to the father as his “income would improve or stay the same, his business overhead costs would diminish, and his emotional support system would be stronger.” The judge specifically found that the father’s family members living in Florida, including his “mother, | 1 | 4 |
Dickenson v. Cogswellgreen1 sentence2011The first prong of the real advantage test focuses “on the reasoning of the custodial parent.” Dickenson v. Cogswell, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 442, 448 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Coopergreen1 sentence2011That test is distinguished by its sensitivity to the reality that, due to the responsibilities of sole physical custody and caretaking, “the best interests of a child are so interwoven with the well-being of the custodial parent, [that] the determination of the child’s best interest requires that the interests of the custodial parent be taken into account.” Id. at 710 , quoting from Cooper v. Cooper, 99 N.J. 42, 54 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Pizzino v. Millergreen2 sentences2010To satisfy the real advantage test, the custodial parent must demonstrate “a good, sincere reason for wanting to remove to another jurisdiction” and “the soundness of the reason for moving, and the presence or absence of a motive to deprive the noncustodial parent of reasonable visitation.” Yannas, supra at 711 . “[A] supportable finding that there is no ‘real advantage’ to the custodial parent from the contemplated move ends the analysis.” Pizzino v. Miller, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 865, 870 (2006). 2010Second, if the “real advantage” test is satisfied, the judge must consider whether the move is in the best interests of the children; thus “consideration must be given ‘to whether the quality of the child’s life may be improved by the change (including any improvement flowing from an improvement in the quality of the custodial parent’s life), the possible adverse effect of the elimination or curtailment of the child’s association with the noncustodial parent, and the extent to which moving or not moving will affect the emotional, physical, or developmental needs of the child.’ ” Id. at 870-871 | 1 | 1 |
Rosenthal v. Maneygreen1 sentence2006The aspect of the judgment that most gives us pause is the judge’s treatment of the factors bearing on the real advantage analysis, which is to say, the presence of a sincere reason for the move and the absence of a motive to deprive the father of reasonable visitation. 2 Rosenthal v. Money, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 257, 266-267 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Persongreen1 sentence2000Commonwealth v. Person, 400 Mass. 136, 138-139 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.