Cavanagh 2025 Introduction: A Case that Keeps Changing the Rules
Few family law cases in Massachusetts have had the sweeping effect of Cavanagh v. Cavanagh. What began as a routine post-divorce dispute over child support and alimony has now produced two landmark appellate opinions, one from the Supreme Judicial Court in 2022 and another from the Appeals Court in 2025. Now, here we are in 2025 with Cavanagh 2.0 or Cavanagh 2025.
The first decision “turned support on its head,” requiring judges to rethink how they calculate alimony and child support together. The second, issued this year, clarifies what that framework really means and how trial judges must apply it in practice.
For families navigating divorce — particularly those with substantial income, private school expenses, and long marriages — the Cavanagh line of cases has fundamentally changed how financial support is determined. For lawyers, it has reset the rules of the game, demanding new rigor in both litigation and negotiation.
This article explains how we got here, what the most recent Appeals Court decision says, and what these rulings mean for clients and practitioners moving forward.
The Road to the First Cavanagh Decision (2022)
The original Cavanagh case arose from a long-term marriage in western Massachusetts and as can be seen here, upended the Massachusetts family law bar. Michael and Lynn Cavanagh divorced in 2016 after 21 years of marriage. They had three sons, all of whom attended private Catholic or preparatory schools. The father was a successful physician’s assistant with multiple jobs, while the mother had largely been out of the workforce to raise the children.
By 2020, disputes erupted over child support, alimony, and whether the youngest son should attend preparatory school. The mother sought alimony for the first time. The trial judge recalculated child support but refused alimony, reasoning that because all of the father’s income had been used to set the child support order, nothing was left “available” for alimony.
On appeal, the SJC confronted a key provision of the Alimony Reform Act, G.L. c. 208, § 53(c)(2), which says:
“When issuing an order for alimony, the court shall exclude from its income calculation … gross income which the court has already considered for setting a child support order.”
Read literally, that language could mean that once child support is calculated, alimony is almost always off the table. But the SJC refused to read it that way.
The SJC’s Landmark Holding
In Cavanagh (2022), the SJC held that child support and alimony can and often should coexist. To harmonize the statute, the Court announced a three-step framework:
Calculate alimony first (based on statutory factors, ability to pay, and the recipient spouse’s need to maintain the marital lifestyle). Then calculate child support using the parties’ post-alimony incomes.
Calculate child support first. Then calculate alimony, using what income remains, again considering statutory factors.
Compare the results. The judge must then decide which combination is most equitable for the family, articulating the reasons for choosing one framework over the other.
The Court emphasized that judges cannot deny alimony without a fact-specific analysis of the parties’ circumstances. Nor can they treat child support as a substitute for spousal support, since the two serve distinct purposes.
In short, the SJC turned support law on its head. For decades, many judges assumed that once child support was set, alimony was usually foreclosed. After Cavanagh, the opposite is true: courts must actively consider both, and in many cases, alimony remains squarely on the table.
The Remand and the Road Back to Appeal
After the SJC’s decision, the case returned to the Hampden Probate and Family Court for further proceedings. But the trial judge’s handling of the remand left key questions unresolved.
Alimony Analysis: The judge did not meaningfully apply the three-step framework. Instead, the analysis suggested that child support still crowded out alimony.
Schooling Obligations: The dispute over the youngest son’s preparatory school expenses remained contentious, with the father arguing he had no obligation absent mutual agreement, and the mother claiming the judgment required his contribution.
Income Definitions: Questions lingered over what counted as “gross income” — employer retirement contributions, health savings accounts, dividends, and second jobs.
These unresolved issues brought the case back up, this time to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
The Cavanagh 2025 Appeals Court Opinion
In July 2025, the Appeals Court issued its decision in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 620. Check out our original blog on it here. While less sweeping than the SJC’s 2022 ruling, the opinion is critical because it clarifies how trial courts must implement the SJC’s framework.
Reinforcing the Three-Step Requirement
The Appeals Court underscored that judges must actually run both sets of calculations — alimony-first and child-support-first — and then compare them. A court cannot simply calculate child support, deny alimony, and move on. Doing so is reversible error.
This ensures that the fact-specific inquiry the SJC demanded is not theoretical, but practical. Each case must include actual numbers under both approaches, giving the judge and the appellate courts a concrete record to evaluate.
Preparatory School Costs
The Appeals Court also weighed in on the schooling dispute. The father’s interpretation — that he could unilaterally block any obligation to contribute by refusing to agree to a preparatory school — was rejected. The Court held that such an interpretation rendered the obligation “illusory.” Where an agreement requires contribution to an “agreed upon” preparatory school, both parties must make good faith efforts to reach agreement; unilateral stonewalling cannot erase the obligation.
Defining Income
Like the SJC, the Appeals Court affirmed that employer retirement contributions and health savings account contributions count as income for child support. Interest and dividends also belong in the gross income calculation, even if irregular. These rulings reinforce the principle that Massachusetts defines income broadly, consistent with the policy that children should be supported as completely as possible from parental resources.
Broader Clarifications
The Appeals Court opinion also touched on retroactivity of modifications, the role of merged separation agreements, and standards for interpreting ambiguous provisions. In each area, it reminded practitioners that careful record-making and statutory fidelity are essential.
Why These Decisions Matter for Massachusetts Families
For Clients: The Stakes Are High
For divorcing or divorced spouses — especially professionals, business owners, and families with private school obligations — the Cavanagh rulings mean that support awards will be more nuanced, and potentially larger, than before.
Alimony is back in play. Even if child support is ordered, the dependent spouse may still receive alimony.
Lifestyle matters. Courts must consider the marital standard of living. In long-term marriages, both spouses should, absent unusual circumstances, maintain comparable lifestyles.
Private school costs are enforceable. If the divorce judgment requires contributions, a spouse cannot avoid payment by simply refusing to agree.
For higher-income families, this means financial obligations may extend across multiple channels: base child support, educational expenses, and ongoing spousal support.
For Lawyers: A New Litigation Framework
Family law practitioners now face a heightened duty under Cavanagh 2025:
Run both calculations. Whether in litigation or negotiation, lawyers must prepare both alimony-first and child-support-first frameworks.
Develop the record. Judges must make findings on statutory factors. Practitioners should build clear evidence of income, lifestyle, and need.
Anticipate appellate scrutiny. Both the SJC and Appeals Court have shown a willingness to vacate and remand when the analysis is incomplete.
In other words, practitioners who fail to prepare both frameworks risk not only losing at trial but also facing remand on appeal.
Practical Implications Moving Forward
Settlements: Knowing that alimony cannot be summarily denied gives dependent spouses more leverage in negotiations.
Financial Planning: Payor spouses must recognize that their obligations may exceed guideline child support, extending into spousal support.
Judicial Consistency: While Cavanagh promotes consistency, it also introduces complexity. Judges must weigh two frameworks, consider tax impacts, and explain their reasoning.
This means litigants should expect longer hearings, more detailed findings, and potentially greater litigation costs — but also more equitable outcomes tailored to their family’s circumstances.
Conclusion: Cavanagh’s Legacy
What started as a fight over child support and preparatory school tuition has become one of the most important family law cases in Massachusetts in decades.
The 2022 SJC opinion declared that alimony and child support can and must be considered together, establishing the three-step calculation method.
The 2025 Appeals Court opinion reinforced that trial judges must follow this method in practice, clarified obligations for private school expenses, and reaffirmed a broad definition of income.
For clients, the message is clear: support obligations are more complex, but also more responsive to family realities. For lawyers, the takeaway is that support litigation in Massachusetts now demands greater precision, preparation, and advocacy.
As Massachusetts law continues to evolve, one thing is certain: Cavanagh v. Cavanagh will be remembered as the case that reshaped alimony and child support for years to come.
If you are navigating divorce, child support, or alimony issues, it is essential to work with a law firm that understands these evolving rules and can protect your financial interests in this changing landscape.
