The respondent father brought a motion to change a comprehensive consent order dated September 10, 2013, which granted the applicant mother sole custody of three children with the respondent having alternate weekly access.
The respondent sought joint custody and primary residence of two of the children, citing the mother's potential relocation to Cambridge as a material change in circumstances.
The respondent also sought to terminate child support for the eldest child.
The court found that the mother was not relocating and currently resided near the respondent.
The court determined that the respondent had not established a material change in circumstances and that the issues raised had already been comprehensively addressed in the existing order.
The court adopted a proportionate, expeditious process consistent with principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, ordering the respondent to file a written response addressing why the motion should not be dismissed.
