David Cherney told the panel the trial judge’s final judgment — which granted joint physical and legal custody and a roughly 60/40 division of marital assets favoring the mother — was result-driven and lacked adequate written findings addressing a serious-incident domestic-abuse statute (G.L. c. 208, §31A) that can create a rebuttable presumption regarding custody. Cherney highlighted testimony that the parties engaged in a physical altercation in which the wife said the husband grabbed her mouth and neck, and he argued the judge did not make the necessary findings required by Vaughn and related precedent to justify joint custody after such incidents.

Sean Spencer for the appellee responded that the trial judge heard three days of testimony, made credibility determinations, and did not find the statutory threshold for a 'serious incident' that would trigger the §31A rebuttable-presumption framework. Spencer emphasized the high appellate standard for disturbing custody and discretionary property rulings and argued the findings and division are supported by the record.

The panel questioned whether the record supports a finding of a pattern or a 'serious incident' as defined in the statute and whether the judge’s factual findings about credibility and lack of repeated incidents are supported by admissible testimony or were the product of evidentiary limits at trial.

Why it matters: The court’s ruling will affect how trial courts must document findings in custody orders when domestic incidents are alleged and where appellate courts should defer to credibility and discretionary judgments in close custody/property decisions.

Outcome: Arguments concluded and the matter was submitted.