MA Appeals Court Vacates Custody Order Over Failure to Notify Father
In a significant victory for parental due process, the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated a visitation modification judgment on June 24. The court ruled in Gessen v. Chigariro that a father's rights were violated when he was not formally notified of a trial that restricted his access to his children.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court has issued a stern reminder to the lower courts regarding the fundamental right of fathers to be heard in custody matters. In the case of Gessen v. Chigariro, decided on June 24, 2026, the court vacated a judgment that had granted 'sole discretion' over visitation to a mother, citing the total absence of notice to the children's father. This ruling reinforces the legal principle that fathers are essential parties who cannot be 'litigated around' in the Probate and Family Court.
The case originated when a grandmother filed for a modification of visitation rights, but failed to name the father as a defendant or provide him with a summons. Despite the father's standing as a parent, the trial proceeded in his absence, resulting in a judgment that effectively cut him out of the decision-making process regarding his children. The Appeals Court found that the record was devoid of any explanation for why the father was excluded, calling the lack of notice a fatal flaw in the proceedings.
This ruling is particularly relevant for fathers who fear that custody or visitation terms may be changed 'behind their back.' It establishes a clear precedent that any modification to a parenting plan or visitation schedule requires strict adherence to notice requirements. For the Fatherly Justice Association, this case highlights a systemic issue where fathers are sometimes treated as secondary participants in family law disputes rather than equal stakeholders.
The Appeals Court remanded the case back to the Probate and Family Court, ordering that the father be given a full opportunity to be heard. The decision sends a message to judges and litigants alike: a father’s relationship with his children is a protected liberty interest that cannot be curtailed without due process. It serves as a warning against 'silent' modifications and ensures that fathers have a seat at the table when their children's futures are being decided.
Furthermore, the case underscores the importance of fathers staying vigilantly involved in the docketing of their cases. While the court eventually corrected this error, the father was forced to endure an appeal to regain his standing. This underscores the need for continued advocacy to ensure that court clerks and judges are held accountable for verifying that all parents are properly served before any life-changing orders are signed.
Source: https://masslawyersweekly.com/2026/06/24/gessen-v-chigariro