Opinion
18-P-350
09-19-2019
Satya Kishore K. V. DANTULURI v. Madhuri DANTULURI.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant, Madhuri Dantuluri (wife), appeals from a judgment of divorce nisi entered by a judge of the Probate and Family Court. She specifically challenges the award of sole legal and primary physical custody of the parties' two minor children to the plaintiff, Satya Kishore K. V. Dantuluri (husband). We affirm.
On May 29, 2012, the husband filed a complaint for divorce in which he sought custody of the parties' three children; the parties had been married for sixteen years. In September 2013, the judge appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to investigate and address issues related to custody of the children, a parenting plan, and allegations of domestic violence. The appointment later was expanded to encompass the mental health of each party. Under a temporary order, the judge awarded custody of the three children to the wife, with parenting time to the husband.
A son and twin daughters. The parties' son is now eighteen years of age; his parental custody is not at issue.
On December 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the husband had been awarded sole legal custody of one of the twins so that he could provide consent for overdue cardiac surgery, which the wife had continuously resisted.
Each party asserted that the other was abusive. In May 2012, a judge of the District Court issued an abuse prevention order (209A order) against the wife, ordering her to refrain from abusing the husband; that order expired in June 2013. In January 2014, the wife obtained against the husband an ex parte 209A order, which was vacated in March 2014. She thereafter unsuccessfully sought extensions from three different judges. The probate court issued a domestic relations protective order in March 2014, ordering the husband not to abuse the wife; it was vacated in March 2016. In her findings here, the judge discredited much of the wife's testimony regarding domestic violence.
In November 2014, the judge ordered both parties to undergo a psychological evaluation by a specifically named doctor selected by the GAL. The wife attempted to have the evaluation performed by a doctor covered by the parties' health insurance. After the husband paid for the cost of her evaluation, the wife made other excuses not to participate. Ultimately, the wife did not comply and a June 2015 order informed the wife that the judge could draw a negative inference from the wife's failure to undergo psychological testing. The judge credited the GAL's testimony that despite the husband's compliance with court orders and willingness to undergo an evaluation, he was not evaluated because the evaluation of only one party could produce a biased result.
In February 2015, the GAL filed a report that included numerous findings concerning the wife's unwillingness to comply with the court-ordered parenting plan, and with protocols the GAL had set for interviews. For example, the GAL explained to the wife that the GAL would meet with all three children together and then separately, but the wife repeatedly failed to bring the children at the same time as scheduled. Similarly, she failed to bring the children to meet together with the GAL and the husband. The GAL also reported the wife's questionable refusal to consent to cardiac surgery for one of the twin daughters even though three separate doctors had unanimously recommended surgery. The wife based her refusal on her own interpretation of the daughter's medical records, misrepresenting comments by the various doctors, and her "expertise and knowledge gained as a science major in college." The GAL also reported that the wife disregarded recommendations from the twins' educators, wanting to keep them in the same classroom despite the objection of the school principal.
The GAL reported other concerning incidents. The wife failed to honor the court-ordered parenting plan, depriving the husband of regularly scheduled overnight visits, which likely contributed to parental estrangement. She also disparaged the husband to the children and regularly interfered with his parenting time. Moreover, the wife insisted that the eight year old twins could make their own decisions as to whether they wanted to have parenting time with the husband. The GAL reported that the wife coached the children to say bad things about the husband during the GAL investigation. In addition, the GAL reported that the wife also failed to facilitate counselling for the son in order to repair his relationship with the husband.
On several occasions during the husband's parenting time, the wife arrived to pick up the children before the husband's parenting time had concluded; on one occasion she went to the husband's apartment after the children had gone to sleep, woke the children to bring them back to her house, and stated to the husband that the children did not want to sleep at his house.
After eight days of trial, where six witnesses, including the parties, testified, and seventy-one exhibits were admitted, judgment entered on September 13, 2016, accompanied by the judge's 350 findings of fact and rationale. The judge found that the wife had obstructed efforts by the GAL to meet with the children together and again with the husband; obstructed the meeting between the son and the GAL; and made continuous excuses not to undergo court-ordered psychological testing. The judge found that the wife's testimony lacked credibility, was at times false, and at other times was misleading or implausible. The judge concluded that the wife exercised questionable judgment, had alienated the children from the husband, and continuously had refused to abide by the court-ordered parenting plan. Moreover, the judge found that the wife's conduct was contrary to the children's best interests.
In contrast, the judge found the husband "generally a credible witness" and that he presented as respectful, calm, reasonable, and honest. The judge also found the husband to be a loving and capable parent and, despite the wife's contentions, was actively involved in caring for the children throughout the marriage; he regularly helped the children with homework and attended medical appointments, school meetings, and extracurricular activities. The judge noted the husband's expressed wish for the children to have a positive relationship with the wife, and that he intended to continue to involve the wife in the lives of, and decisions regarding, the children if he were granted custody. The wife timely appealed.
The judge did acknowledge that the husband was "not faultless"; he too involved the son in marital conflicts.
Discussion. The wife argues that the judge erred in granting to the husband sole legal and physical custody of the parties' twin daughters, as it was not in their best interests. She claims that, in doing so, the judge punished her for her lack of cooperation in facilitating the husband's visits with the children, failing to schedule requested interviews with the GAL, and for not undergoing a psychological evaluation. The wife also contends that the judge improperly relied on one isolated incident in May 2014 in determining that the wife failed to comply with the parenting plan. We are not persuaded.
The wife also argues that the judge erred in relying on her failure to comply with the temporary parenting plan in awarding the husband custody, as that issue had been litigated previously and the wife was not found in contempt; she contends this precludes the husband from raising the issue a second time. However, as the husband argues, the previous contempt ruling had no preclusive effect on the subsequent custody determination because prior rulings addressed different legal issues with different burdens of proof. See Krochta v. Commonwealth, 429 Mass. 711, 714-718, 711 N.E.2d 142 (1999) (collateral estoppel not applicable where common factual issue previously decided under different standard of proof). Accordingly, here, just because the judge in the contempt proceeding did not find that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated the wife disobeyed a clear and unequivocal command, Feinstein v. Feinstein, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 230, 234, 123 N.E.3d 781 (2019), does not mean that evidence of the wife's conduct could not be considered in determining what is in the best interests of the children.
"The best interests of a child is the overarching principle that governs custody disputes in the Commonwealth." Charara v. Yatim, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 325, 334, 937 N.E.2d 490 (2010). "What is in a child's best interest depends upon the particular needs of the child, and is left largely to the discretion of the judge, who ‘may consider any factor pertinent to those interests.’ " Id., quoting Houston v. Houston, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 529, 535, 834 N.E.2d 297 (2005). "The judge's findings in a custody case ‘must stand unless they are plainly wrong,’ or ‘clearly erroneous’ " (citations omitted). Loebel v. Loebel, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 740, 747, 933 N.E.2d 1018 (2010). The judge's "ultimate conclusion" as to an award of custody must have a solid "foundation in the record supported by ‘ground-level facts.’ " Id., quoting Prenaveau v. Prenaveau, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 131, 142, 912 N.E.2d 489 (2009).
Here, the judge determined that "[t]he evidence demonstrated a pattern in [the wife]'s behavior that calls into question her judgment and her ability to separate her own interests from those of the children. She has frequently acted contrary to the twins' best interests." The judge found the wife has "engaged in a campaign to alienate [the husband] from the children." As is clear from the evidence, during the pendency of this case the wife consistently has refused to abide by the parenting plan, either preventing the husband from exercising his parenting time or interrupting the time the husband spends with the children. She disparaged the husband to the children, and conveyed to the GAL that it was of no import for the children to have a relationship with the husband. The wife has "coached" the children to tell the GAL that they do not want to stay over at the husband's house. Moreover, the wife has interfered with any attempt at a relationship between the husband and the parties' son.
In addition, the judge, as permitted, drew a negative inference from the wife's failure to undergo a psychological evaluation, noting the wife's implausible excuses to avoid the testing. The wife also impeded the GAL's investigation, which in turn "frustrated" the judge's "ability to thoroughly consider relevant evidence and information in adjudicating [the wife's] [c]omplaint." Equally important, the judge found that the wife's testimony lacked credibility, and at times was either "demonstrably false," "misleading," or "highly implausible." The judge acknowledged that the husband was not faultless, but he was a generally respectful, reasonable, and credible witness. Based on the wife's pattern of behavior, the judge reasonably could conclude that it would be detrimental to the children's relationship with the husband and not in the children's best interests if the wife maintained primary physical custody. See Smith v. McDonald, 458 Mass. 540, 553-554, 941 N.E.2d 1 (2010) (where judge finds "hostile parent has stymied deliberately any attempts by the other parent to participate in the child's life, such a finding may support an award of sole custody to the other parent, where that custodial arrangement will not be detrimental to the child").
The judge found that the twins told the GAL that they like the husband and enjoy spending time with him. Although the judge acknowledged that the twins have separation anxiety with regard to the wife, the judge found that their anxiety was caused and "somewhat encouraged" by the wife and not due to any fear they have of the husband. The judge found that if the wife retained physical custody, she would continue to alienate the twins from the husband and "ultimately deprive them of a loving and capable parent."
In addition, the wife's continued refusal to cooperate with the husband in making medical and educational decisions vital to the children's well-being highlighted the unlikelihood of the wife's commitment to work in the future with the husband in making "major decisions regarding the child[ren]'s welfare, including matters of education, medical care, and emotional, moral and religious development." G. L. c. 208, § 31. See Mason v. Coleman, 447 Mass. 177, 181-182, 850 N.E.2d 513 (2006). Taken together, these subsidiary and ultimate findings based on the evidence at trial support the judge's determination that it is in the best interests of the children for the husband to have sole legal custody with regular parenting time for the wife. See Schechter v. Schechter, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 239, 245, 37 N.E.3d 632 (2015) ("The judge's factual findings must be left undisturbed absent a showing that they are plainly wrong or clearly erroneous").
Based on the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion in awarding to the husband sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two minor children. See Schechter, 88 Mass. App. Ct. at 245, 37 N.E.3d 632. "We have scrutinized closely the custody orders and perceive neither an abuse of discretion nor an error of law." K.A. v. T.R., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 554, 566, 18 N.E.3d 1107 (2014).
We deny the requests of both the wife and the husband for an award of attorney's fees incurred in connection with this appeal.
--------
Judgment affirmed.