# Custody of a Minor (No. 3)

> Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · August 9, 1979 · 378 Mass. 732

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713597

## Case

- **Full name:** Custody of a Minor (No. 3)
- **Court:** Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- **Decided:** August 9, 1979
- **Citations:** 378 Mass. 732; 393 N.E.2d 836; 1979 Mass. LEXIS 896
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Braucher
- **Judges:** Hennessey, Braucher, Kaplan, Wilkins, Liacos
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713597

## Opinion text

Braucher, J.
(dissenting). In my view this appeal should be dismissed because, as the court notes (supra note 1), the parents have left the Commonwealth with the child, in violation of the trial court’s orders. Ellis v. Doherty, 334 Mass. 466 (1956). Henderson v. Henderson, 329 Mass. 257 (1952). See Pur-Shahriari v. Pur-Shahriari, 355 Mass. 632, 633 (1969). Cf. Commonwealth v. Andrews, 97 Mass. 543 (1867) (criminal appeal). I would raise the point on the court’s own motion, looking to the merits only to the extent necessary to be sure that the interests of the child were adequately represented by the guardian ad litem. They were. My view is reinforced by the fact that the presentation of the appeal on behalf of the parents was quite summary.
Since none of my brethren shares my view, I think it is proper to state that I do not disagree with the court’s conclusion on the merits.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713597. Public record. Not legal advice.