Families in Massachusetts are used to the idea that “custody” lives in Probate and Family Court. But every so often, a case comes along that reminds us custody law is bigger than one courthouse—and that the rules about which state gets to decide can matter as much as the rules about who should have parenting time.
That’s exactly what happened in Custody of Vale (Appeals Court No. 24-P-1190, decided December 23, 2025)—a cross-state custody dispute with Massachusetts, Indiana, a runaway report, a care-and-protection case in Juvenile Court, and a separate interstate return demand under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles (ICJ). The Appeals Court reversed a Massachusetts Juvenile Court order that would have sent a child back to Indiana, holding that Massachusetts—not Indiana—had jurisdiction to decide custody and that the Indiana requisition should never have been issued or enforced in the first place.
Even though the case arose in Juvenile Court (because DCF filed a care and protection petition), the jurisdiction fight it addresses is directly relevant to many Probate and Family Court custody cases in Greater Boston and across the Commonwealth—especially where parents (or children) cross state lines, someone alleges “kidnapping” or “runaway,” or a party tries to pick a forum that seems more favorable.
What follows is a plain-English explanation of what the Appeals Court did, why it matters, and how it can apply to interstate custody disputes you might see in our local Probate and Family Court.
Quick note: This is general information for Massachusetts readers, not legal advice for your specific situation. Interstate custody questions can be very fact-specific.
The Story of Vale: A Child, Two States, and a Race to Control the Case
The child at the center of the case (identified by a pseudonym, “Vale”) was born in Honduras in 2010. In 2023, he and his older brother entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors and were placed through federal resettlement processes with an uncle in Indianapolis, Indiana. The placement did not involve a state court custody order in Indiana (at least on the record described), and the children later ran away.
They ended up in Massachusetts—first in Revere, later Brockton—where state child welfare authorities became involved after a report under Massachusetts law (a “51A” report) raised concerns about neglect. Eventually, DCF filed a care and protection petition in Juvenile Court (January 29, 2024), and the court awarded DCF temporary custody.
So far, this looks like a Massachusetts child welfare case. But it became an interstate tug-of-war when Indiana officials initiated steps to have the child returned to Indiana as a “runaway,” using the Interstate Compact on Juveniles (ICJ)—a uniform agreement that many states use to coordinate the return of certain juveniles across state lines. Massachusetts has enacted the ICJ at G.L. c. 120A. (Massachusetts General Court)
An Indiana court issued what’s called a requisition (a formal demand for return) under the ICJ. The requisition was then filed in the Massachusetts Juvenile Court, and the Massachusetts judge treated it as something she had to honor—ordering the child returned to Indiana.
The child (through counsel) and DCF pushed back and argued:
- the ICJ requisition was improper because Indiana didn’t actually have a legal custodian for the child; and
- Massachusetts had already opened a custody proceeding first, so Indiana could not jump in later and take control.
The Appeals Court agreed—and reversed.
The Legal Fight: ICJ “Return” vs. Child Custody Jurisdiction Rules
A key theme in the Appeals Court’s decision is that two different legal systems were colliding:
- The Interstate Compact on Juveniles (ICJ)
- Mainly used for interstate cooperation on juvenile supervision and return (including runaways), with standardized forms and rules. (compacts.csg.org)
- Massachusetts’s enactment is in G.L. c. 120A. (Massachusetts General Court)
- The child custody jurisdiction framework (Massachusetts’s version and the federal overlay)
- Massachusetts uses the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA), G.L. c. 209B, and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (the federal “full faith and credit” custody statute).
- These laws exist to prevent exactly what happened here: dueling states issuing conflicting custody decisions and parties shopping for a friendlier forum.
The core question became: Can one state use the ICJ to “pull” a child back when another state has already begun a custody case? And more specifically: Was Indiana allowed to issue a requisition after Massachusetts had already started a custody proceeding and granted DCF custody?
The Appeals Court’s answer was essentially: No. Not on this record.
Big Takeaway #1: A Requisition Isn’t a Magic Wand—ICJ Return Requires a Real “Home State” Custodian
The Appeals Court concluded the ICJ did not properly apply the way Indiana and the Massachusetts Juvenile Court used it—because the child did not have an identifiable legal custodian in Indiana at the relevant time, and Indiana’s requisition rested on assumptions rather than proof of custody entitlement.
Why does that matter? Because the ICJ’s runaway process is built around the idea that a juvenile has a home state and a legal guardian or custodial agency there.
Here’s the practical translation: You can’t use ICJ paperwork as a shortcut around real custody jurisdiction rules if the “home state custodian” is unclear or nonexistent.
For Massachusetts practitioners (and for parents), the lesson is simple but important:
- If the other state cannot show who actually has legal custody (by order or by recognized legal status),
- and cannot show that the juvenile is being returned to a legitimate legal custodian or custodial agency,
- an ICJ demand may be vulnerable to challenge.
The ICJ itself is real law. States must cooperate under it. (Massachusetts General Court)
But cooperation doesn’t mean “rubber stamping” a return request that conflicts with custody jurisdiction statutes.
Big Takeaway #2: Timing Matters—The First Proper Custody Case Usually Controls
This is the part of Vale that is most likely to show up in Probate and Family Court custody disputes.
The Appeals Court emphasized that Massachusetts custody proceedings began first (January 29, 2024), and Indiana’s requisition case began later (mid-April 2024). Once a custody proceeding is properly pending in one state, other states are generally barred from starting their own competing custody case, except in narrow emergency situations.
That policy is baked into the federal PKPA, which is designed to prevent conflicting custody orders and interstate forum wars. (The statute requires states to enforce custody determinations made consistently with the PKPA and limits when a second state can act while a first case is pending.) (Massachusetts.gov)
In normal person terms: the legal system wants one state at a time deciding custody.
So what does this mean in family court life?
- If Parent A files in Massachusetts first (and Massachusetts has jurisdiction under the applicable statute), Parent B usually can’t run to another state and start a competing custody case that overrides the Massachusetts proceeding.
- Conversely, if a case is already pending in another state and that state has jurisdiction, a Massachusetts court may have to step back (again, with exceptions).
The Vale decision reinforces the importance of starting in the right court and establishing jurisdiction early, especially when a child has recently moved across state lines.
Big Takeaway #3: “Home State” Isn’t Always the Answer—Sometimes No State Has It
Most parents have heard (or will hear) the phrase “home state” in an interstate custody fight. Home state is often the first—and strongest—basis for jurisdiction.
But Vale is a reminder that sometimes no state qualifies as the home state. In that situation, courts look to other jurisdiction bases—often called “significant connection” or “default” jurisdiction.
That matters for modern custody disputes where families are mobile, including situations like:
- a parent relocates shortly before filing,
- a child has been living in multiple places in a short period,
- a parent temporarily shelters with relatives out of state,
- a parent is in the military, traveling for work, or fleeing domestic violence,
- or (as in Vale) a child’s living situation doesn’t fit the usual “two parents + one address” custody framework.
When no state has “home state” jurisdiction, Massachusetts can still take the case if:
- the child and at least one party have a meaningful connection to Massachusetts, and
- substantial evidence about the child’s care, protection, schooling, and relationships is available here.
In many Probate and Family Court cases, that “evidence” looks like:
- school records and IEPs,
- pediatrician and therapy records,
- witnesses like teachers, coaches, relatives, and neighbors,
- documentation of housing stability and day-to-day care,
- and the child’s own connections (siblings, extended family, community supports).
In Vale, the court emphasized that Massachusetts had significant connections and substantial evidence because the child was physically here, receiving services here, attending school here, and doing well in a stable placement here.
Big Takeaway #4: Judges Should Communicate Across State Lines—And Lawyers Should Ask Them To
One of the most practical (and quietly powerful) points in the opinion is the Appeals Court’s critique of how the jurisdiction question was handled at the trial level.
When the record is incomplete or contradictory, interstate custody statutes typically encourage judicial communication—judge-to-judge—to clarify what is happening in the other state and to avoid mistaken assumptions.
This is incredibly relevant in Probate and Family Court because interstate confusion often comes from missing pieces:
- Is there an existing order in another state?
- Was there a prior guardianship or DCF case somewhere else?
- Did another state decline jurisdiction?
- Is someone claiming a custody order that doesn’t exist?
In real life, it is not unusual to see a party show up with:
- partial paperwork,
- a “docket printout” without context,
- a police report,
- or an out-of-state filing that looks official but doesn’t actually establish custody.
Vale underscores that Massachusetts courts shouldn’t fill those gaps with guesses—and that requesting judicial communication can be an important move when jurisdiction is disputed.
How This Applies to Probate and Family Court Custody Cases in Massachusetts
Even though Vale arose in Juvenile Court (DCF custody), the jurisdiction principles translate directly to Probate and Family Court custody disputes like these:
1) The “I moved here and filed” case
A parent moves to Massachusetts with a child and quickly files for custody. The other parent says, “That’s kidnapping” and files in the former state.
What Vale adds:
- Courts must determine whether Massachusetts has jurisdiction (home state, significant connection, emergency, or default).
- The other state cannot automatically seize jurisdiction simply because the child used to live there—especially if Massachusetts has already begun a case properly and the other state’s filing comes later.
2) The “emergency” case (domestic violence, neglect, or safety concerns)
A parent comes to Massachusetts and claims the child needs immediate removal for safety reasons. Massachusetts can often make short-term emergency orders, but long-term jurisdiction may still depend on home state or significant connection rules.
What Vale adds:
- Emergency jurisdiction is not a blank check. Courts still need to sort out which state should own the custody case long-term—and communication between courts is often part of doing that correctly.
3) The “runaway teenager” case
A teen leaves one state and comes to Massachusetts—maybe to live with a parent, a sibling, grandparents, or a trusted adult. Sometimes the left-behind state treats it like a runaway return situation. Sometimes a parent tries to use juvenile processes to force a return, while the receiving state sees a custody dispute.
What Vale adds:
- The presence of a “runaway” label doesn’t eliminate the need to follow custody jurisdiction rules.
- If Massachusetts has properly commenced a custody proceeding first (and has jurisdiction under the statute), a later attempt by another state to force return may be challengeable—particularly where custody entitlement in the sending state is murky.
4) The “forum shopping” fight (two cases, two states)
This is common: Parent A files in State X. Parent B files in Massachusetts. Each says the other state has no jurisdiction.
What Vale adds:
- The sequence of filings and the statutory jurisdiction basis matter a lot.
- Massachusetts courts should not accept conclusory out-of-state assertions when they can be verified through court-to-court communication or records.
Practical Lessons for Parents (and for Counsel)
If you are involved in (or anticipating) an interstate custody issue in Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, Vale points to several practical realities:
- Don’t assume “where the child used to live” controls. Home state often matters, but not always—especially if no state meets the six-month rule.
- File strategically but responsibly. If Massachusetts is the proper forum, filing first can matter. But filing in the wrong forum can backfire badly.
- Document the child’s Massachusetts connections. Schooling, medical care, stable housing, community ties, sibling relationships—these are not just “best interest” factors; they can also become jurisdiction factors when home state is unclear.
- Push for clarity, not shortcuts. If the other side claims there’s an out-of-state order or entitlement, ask for the actual order and record—not just a narrative.
- Ask the judge to communicate with the other state when needed. Interstate custody statutes promote cooperation across state lines. When the facts are fuzzy, court-to-court communication can prevent major errors.
Why This Case Matters Locally
In Massachusetts—especially in communities like Boston, Revere, Brockton, and beyond—families are increasingly interstate:
- parents share custody across state borders,
- relatives provide informal care,
- immigration and resettlement cases create unique custodial arrangements,
- and economic pressures force frequent moves.
Custody of Vale is a reminder that jurisdiction is not a technicality. It decides:
- where the case will be heard,
- which state’s standards and procedures apply,
- how quickly orders can be issued and enforced,
- and sometimes whether a child will be physically moved across the country before the merits are ever reached.
For Probate and Family Court custody litigants, the message is: if there’s an interstate dimension, treat jurisdiction as step one—not an afterthought.
Closing Thought
Most custody fights feel intensely personal—and they are. But interstate custody fights add a layer of legal engineering meant to protect children from chaos: one state at a time, clear jurisdiction rules, and cooperation between courts.
Custody of Vale strengthens that architecture in Massachusetts. It signals that courts should not enforce an out-of-state return demand simply because it arrives with official-looking paperwork, and it reaffirms that Massachusetts can—and sometimes must—take jurisdiction when no other state clearly qualifies as the child’s home state and Massachusetts is where the meaningful evidence and connections actually are.