post by Jennifer Hawthorne In most families, when spouses decide that getting a divorce may be the best road forward for their family, one of the first questions that almost universally causes concern is what lifestyle will my family live after the divorce. Will there be enough money to support two households and keep us comfortable and even relatively close to the lifestyle we live now? In Massachusetts, the two basic statutory means for one spouse to provide support for the other’s household after a divorce are child support and alimony. There is a third option that essentially combines the two into unallocated support, which you can read more about by clicking here . Child Support changes with new circumstances: If there are children involved, discussions with professionals will usually start with child support which is based on guidelines that dictate a specific formula be applied resulting in a presumptive amount of support. During such a discussion, you will learn that ...

Guest Post from Jennifer Hawthorne* When contemplating a divorce, one of the first questions most parties to a divorce ask themselves is “how will I support myself during and after the divorce?” Determining how much support can or should be paid by the higher income earner to the lower income earner can often be one of the most contentious issues in a divorce. Both parties often feel like they just will not have enough income to support themselves and their children. This uncertainty can be unsettling.  In many cases trying to find the right balance of support can lead the parties to do a tax analysis that compares the benefits of agreeing to a child support order, an alimony order, or some combination of both, sometimes called unallocated (family) support.  Often times the tax analysis will show that moving away from child support even though there are unemancipated children will leave more money in the hands of both parties. This happens because alimony and unalloc...

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently provided an overview of the two-part test for deciding if a custodial parent can move out of state with their child  in  Rosenwasser v. Rosenwasser .   The father in Rosenwasser requested the court's permission to move to Florida with the parties' minor child.  The trial court denied his request after applying the two-part test from the Yannas case .  However, the appeals court disagreed with how the trial court applied the test and focused specifically on a change the mother made to her parenting only recently. The appeals court agreed with the trial court that the father met the first prong of the Yannas test because there was a "real advantage" to him moving to Florida, namely decreased expenses and family support.  In addition, the request to move did not appear to be motivated by a desire to deprive the mother of time with the child. The second part of the Yannas test requires the court to determine if the...