Attorney Maureen McBrien spoke last week at a hearing before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary of the Massachusetts State Legislature in favor of the Act to adopt the uniform family law arbitration act.  The bill (H. No. 1940) is sponsored by Representative Ramos of North Andover and Representative Cataldo of Concord.  Attorney McBrien hopes that Massachusetts becomes the ninth state to adopt the act to afford family law participants an alternative path to resolution of their family law matters.

Role / Who We’re Seeking
We are seeking a talented, eager and hardworking attorney looking for a long-term home from which to advance their career. We welcome applications from attorneys at all phases of their careers, but are particularly interested in those with experience practicing various aspects of family law. The successful candidate will be desirous of collaborating with experienced lawyers and paralegals to enhance their skills and advance their career and to assist with a large existing caseload. Must be licensed in Massachusetts and willing and able to appear at courtrooms across the Commonwealth.

Who We Are
Brick, Jones, McBrien & Hickey LLP is a divorce and family law practice located in Needham, MA. Our practice runs the gamut of domestic relations matters, from relatively simple, uncontested matters to mediations and arbitrations to complex and prolonged litigation and trials, as well as family law appeals.

While we operate a busy practice, we also strive for balance in our work and personal lives, and we value our collegial atmosphere. Our experienced family law partners provide regular mentoring to those early on in their career. We have a dedicated team of paralegals and staff who support the practice. The firm operates primarily in-office, but attorneys are granted flexibility over their schedules to work from home on occasion.

The position offers a base salary, which is dependent on experience, plus bonus. Benefits include: health, disability, and life insurance; pre-tax health savings plans; 401k with employer contribution; paid vacation and sick time.

To Apply
Please send your statement of interest, writing sample, and resume in confidence to hr@brickjones.com.

Q. My wife asked me to leave after an argument two years ago.  I did.  She then got a restraining order claiming she was afraid I would hurt her.  I would never hurt her but understand she wanted me out for a while.  About four months after our fight, she asked to reconcile and I moved back in.  I have always paid all of our expenses including rent, utilities, both our student loan bills and have been giving her $300 per week for incidentals for over two years.

We agreed she wouldn’t work until our daughter starts kindergarten in the fall.  The day after our return from a ten-day vacation I was served with a divorce complaint and motion for retroactive child support back to the date she got the restraining order over two years ago.  She is asking for $1,400 per week, an amount just shy of half my gross paycheck.  What are the chances the judge orders me to pay that much and how can I prepare for the hearing?

A. You need not worry too much about this. She can ask for retroactive child support back to the date you were served with the divorce summons and the judge may establish a support order and make it retroactive from the motion date back to the service date.  But, if you continue to voluntarily pay $300 per week and all of the other expenses, I suspect the judge will have little sympathy for her request.

You should fill out the court financial statement form as soon as possible.  Go back into your records to figure out exactly how much you have paid in all utilities and rent since you initially moved out.  Summarize the amounts and bring copies of your bank statements and cancelled checks to the hearing so you can show the judge what you have been paying.  Bring evidence of the $300 per week you have been voluntarily paying.  On these facts, your exposure should be limited to the difference between the child support guidelines figure and the $300 per week you are currently paying on a voluntary basis.

You should also complete a child support guideline worksheet form.  If you find that $300 per week is less than the figure from the worksheet, you should increase your voluntary payment to the guideline amount between now and the time of the hearing. You have a good argument that the total monthly figure you pay for rent, utilities, and her student loans should be divided to a weekly number and added to your voluntary support payment credit.

Email questions to whickey@brickjones.com

Attorney Alex Jones worked on the planning committee for the event and will be moderating a panel on “The Bench and the Bar: Respective Perspectives,” with Afton Pavletic, Esq., Richard Novitch, Esq., Hon. Paul Cronan, Hon. Lee Peterson, Hon. Nan Sauer. Attorneys Maureen McBrien, Gina Calabro, Mary B. Nee, Esq., and Hannah Flaherty will also be in attendance. We hope to see you there!

MA AFCC ANNUAL CHAPTER CONFERENCE March 21, 2025

Q. I am in the middle of a divorce process and my husband plans to take our kids to Mexico for April school vacation.  His brother lives there, and he goes to visit once a year. He is fighting me for custody of our kids, and he has the kind of job where he can work anywhere.  He was ordered to vacate our home, so he is renting a house on a monthly basis. There is nothing holding him here if he decides not to come back. My lawyer told me there is nothing I can do because he has the right to travel with the children during his vacation time and if I am worried just don’t sign the travel authorization letter for him to leave the country.

I have friends who have traveled out of the country with their children and never been asked for an authorization letter at the time of departure.  I am worried.  Do you think I have any grounds to object to this trip?

A. It sounds like you should be worried.  There are several ways to prevent travel to Mexico right now.  Your lawyer needs to file a motion with the court to prevent the trip.  You should visit the US State Department website to determine the right warning level to where your brother-in-law lives.  Many areas of Mexico are at a Level 4 “do not travel status” and other areas are a Level 3.  If your husband’s family lives in any area which is rated Level 3 or 4 you can appeal to the judge for your children’s safety.

If the issue is beyond just a trip to Mexico for vacation and a larger concern that if he gets the children out of the country he may head to Mexico and never return, that is even more important for the judge to know.  In that event, your lawyer can ask the judge for a Do Not Depart Order which, when issued, gets emailed to the State Department at PreventAbduction1@state.gov.  From there, the order will be passed on to Customs and Border Patrol for enforcement and your children will not be allowed to leave the country.

Ask that all passports for your children be turned over to you for safekeeping.  Alternatively, one of the lawyers can be ordered to hold them.  You should also ask that he be prevented from obtaining any additional passports for the children in both the US and any other country in which they could be entitled to a passport.

Email questions to whickey@brickjones.com

Attorney Maureen McBrien made oral arguments today before the Justices of the Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2023-P-0830 JUSTIN SMITH vs. MONIQUE ARMSTRONG. 

https://www.youtube.com/live/h39dxLMoTtg?feature=shared&t=6360

Q. I just had a horrible experience in court. My husband and I reached an agreement with our lawyers. Part of the agreement was that I would stay in our house until our daughters, who are freshmen, graduate from college and then we would sell and divide the proceeds equally. We feel very strongly that they should be able to come back to their childhood home.

I don’t have the money to buy him out. He doesn’t want to buy me out, but he is willing to let me stay in the house in exchange for a reduced child support payment so long as he continues to share in any appreciation when it is sold in four years.

We feel very strongly about this provision because one of our daughters struggles with mental health and we are not confident she will be able to remain living in a dorm – she may end up moving home and commuting.

When the lawyers presented our agreement to the judge, she rejected it and said we can’t keep the house together post-divorce and we can’t use that as a means to cut child support. The lawyers basically threw up their hands and said she is a new judge and they didn’t know she would reject it. Shouldn’t the lawyers know the judges? What can we do now?

A. Part of every lawyer’s job is to know the judges. That includes knowing nuances of which judges approve certain clauses. The judges have significant discretion in family law matters and not everyone approaches things the same way or for the same reasons. There was a recent flurry of judicial appointments in family court and even in the years leading up to this, there were many new judges appointed. The lawyers do not get to choose which judges are assigned to our cases. And sometimes, by the timing of when we file our cases, we get the same judge over and over (happens to me all the time). So, we don’t get to know how the newer judges approach some of the more unique issues – all we can do is try to explain the reason for the agreement and sometimes the judges will reconsider and sometimes not.

You have two bad options – dismiss your divorce and wait a few more years before re-filing at which point you won’t need this provision, or come up with a different solution to the issue. If the two of you are able to live apart and abide by the spirit of your agreement – try it.

Email questions to whickey@brickjones.com

Q. I saw your column a week or so ago and you said if children don’t want to be returned to another country a judge will listen to them and they don’t have to be sent back. In that situation the children were about the same ages as mine – 14 and 11. I am getting different advice from my lawyer and wonder who is right.

I am remarried and share custody, but they don’t like their mother’s boyfriend and want to spend more time with me and my wife. I am moving to New York for work and want them to come with me. They are both on board, but their mom won’t let them move and my lawyer says the judge won’t let them testify and they are too young to have a say. If kids can say they don’t want to go back to another country, the same age kids should be able to say they want to move to New York, right?

A. I can see why you think that, but the prior question dealt with an international kidnapping treaty that many countries around the world have signed onto which sets out standards for cooperation with each other and forms a cohesive process to return kids who are wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained somewhere other than their home country.

Your situation is entirely different. You have are two children on the cusp of being old enough to make important decisions for themselves. The maturity standard in the Hague Convention is different from Massachusetts case law and the entire analysis is different. You have to operate within the scope of Mass. removal law and the standard is whether it is in their best interest to move out of state with you.

It is widely accepted that children of similar ages to yours in a custody proceeding have a voice but not a choice. The court can appoint a professional to interview them or advocate on their behalf and convey their opinions. But, just because they have an opinion does NOT mean they have the ultimate say in what the custodial arrangement is – especially if that involves uprooting their entire lives and moving with you to another state away from their other parent, their friends, their extended family, doctors, coaches, teachers and other people who have been instrumental in supporting them to this point in life.

That is a big change and one that will be in the judge’s hands if you and your ex are unable to reach an agreement.

Email questions to whickey@brickjones.com