Poulin v. Chowdhury (2018) & Resolution via Mutual Agreement

Whenever possible, parents have an incentive to resolve custody issues via private mutual agreement. Custody issues may be litigated in court, but litigation is typically quite expensive, and also time-consuming. In general, resolution via private mutual agreement is the best option, at least in most cases. Those who enter into private agreements on custody issues need to be aware of the binding nature of these agreements, however. If an agreement is formally accepted by the court, then that agreement cannot simply be unilaterally revoked or changed by one party. This means, among other things, that parties need to be very cautious and careful when they go about drafting and signing a mutual agreement on custody. Parties should never go into one of these agreements without the assistance of capable counsel.

The case of Poulin v. Chowdhury (2018) provides a good example of how mutual agreements need to be carefully considered given the fact that modifications are often difficult to obtain. Let’s explore this case in a bit of detail.

Overview of the Case

The couple in this case were married in 2014 and then had a son in late 2015. Shortly after the son was born, the relationship between the mother and father unraveled as the mother complained about the father’s drug use. Ultimately, the mother told the father that, in addition to their relationship being over, she intended to relocate to Texas with their son. The father then went to court and requested custody, along with child support; in response, the mother soon went to court and made a similar request for custody, child support, and permission to relocate to Texas (specifically, Houston).

Before the court settled these issues itself, the couple was able to privately work out the various issues related to custody, visitation, and relocation. The private agreement between the mother and father held that the father would undergo “random drug tests,” and that a failed drug test essentially gave the mother “temporary sole custody” and permission to relocate to Houston with the child. If the father passed these random drug tests, however, then the couple would continue to share joint custody. If the father did fail a test and the mother ended up relocating, then the father would be allowed to have supervised visitation in Houston. About six months after this private agreement was developed, the mother received an offer of employment from a company in Houston, and she expressed a desire to relocate with the child. However, the father hadn’t failed any drug test, and so the father tried to block the mother’s request. When the father requested denial of the proposed relocation, the court concurred with the father and denied the request.

Outcome & Discussion

The mother wanted to relocate with the child to accept the offer of employment, but she hadn’t filed a formal motion to modify the existing agreement. She simply expressed a desire to move, but this move was considered impermissible given the terms of the agreement. The agreement clearly stated that relocation was contingent on the father failing a drug test, and the father hadn’t failed any test. The court determined that the proper enforcement of the agreement required a denial of the mother’s request. However, the mother could’ve still attempted to move with the child, but she would’ve needed to file a motion to modify the agreement. To modify the agreement, the mother would’ve needed to then successfully demonstrate a reason for doing so (i.e. a “material change” in circumstances).Custody agreements can be modified, but there must be a sufficient basis for the modification. Since the mother failed to follow this procedure, there was no course other than to reject her proposal.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information

If you want additional information on custody agreements, relocation, modification, or another family law issue, reach out to one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.