Daisy M. Hale v. Nathan B. Hale

In a proceeding for a separate support, where it appeared that a probate Judge, in denying a motion by the parent having custody of minor children for leave to remove the children from the Commonwealth, had considered the children's need for weekly visitation by the non-custodial parent but had not considered the advantages of the move with respect to the emotional well being of the family, the potential stress on the custodial parent if the move did not occur, or possible adjustments to the visiting schedules and support payments in favor of the non-custodial parent if the move occurred, this court remanded the case for consideration of these factors and, if desired by either party or the Judge, the hearing of additional evidence. [815-821] After a hearing on the wife's petition for separate support and her motion for leave to remove the children from the Commonwealth, a probate Judge ruled that she had justifiable cause for living apart, ordered her husband to make child support payments, awarded her custody of the two minor children, 1 but prohibited her from removing them to California. This appeal by the wife is from that portion of the judgment which prohibits her from taking the minor children to California. Because we are concerned that the Judge may have had too narrow a focus in making this decision of critical significance to the lives of both of these parents and their children, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.