Issues of Custody, Parenting Time, and One Bad Haircut

In a hair-raising decision this week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the Probate and Family Court’s judgment in James Vander Salm v. Kara Fontenot (2025), addressing issues of custody, parenting time, appellate attorney’s fees – and perhaps most unusually, children’s haircuts.

James Vander Salm appealed from the judgment entered on his complaint for custody, support, and parenting time, challenging both the substantive rulings of the judge and the award of prospective appellate attorney’s fees. The parties, who were never married, share two children. Following their separation in March of 2020, Vander Salm filed his original complaint seeking custody and a defined parenting schedule in October of 2020.

Later that same month, the Probate and Family Court issued a Temporary Order outlining parenting time: Mother was to have the children Sunday through Wednesday, Father from Wednesday through Friday, and then the parties would alternate weekends. The parties were also awarded joint legal custody, and the order further addressed holiday parenting time and financial responsibilities. The resulting parenting time schedule provided Mother with eight out of fourteen overnight visits with the children, whereas Father had six.

In April and May of 2022, the parties appeared before the Honorable Judge Jennifer Melia for a four-day trial. In her September 21, 2022, Judgement, Judge Melia found that both parents were “devoted” and shared a “very close bond” with their children. Nonetheless, a particular dispute emerged between the parties: haircuts. Specifically, a December 2020 incident involving a “short and uneven” haircut administered by Father became emblematic of the broader breakdown in the parties’ cooperation. The Court further described the haircut issue as “contentious” and ultimate found it in the best interests of the children for Mother to have sole authority over haircut decisions until the children reached an age of “sufficient maturity to provide input.”

Judge Melia further maintained the existing parenting schedule from October of 2020 and reaffirmed joint legal custody, including Mother’s haircut decision-making authority under such provision, and ordered Father to pay child support to Mother. Additionally, on November 21, 2022, the Court awarded Mother prospective appellate attorney’s fees.

Vander Salm appealed, alleging abuse of discretion, violation of due process, and unfair treatment regarding both parenting time and haircut authority. He further contended that the appellate attorney’s fees award was improperly granted, asserting that he was unfairly presumed able to pay such fees. He also challenged the continuation of the October 2020 temporary parenting plan without further evidentiary hearing.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court – comprised of Justices Gregory I. Massing, Maureen Walsh, and Robert A. Brennan – affirmed the judgment in full, including awarding Mother prospective appellate attorney’s fees. The Appeals Court concluded that the existing parenting plan, while akin to the previous October 2020 Temporary Order, served the children’s best interests, particularly given the parties’ historical inability to cooperatively manage scheduling of the children’s extracurricular activities. It found that the haircut provision, though unusual, fell within the scope of legal custody and was appropriate decided given that Mother had routinely scheduled and facilitated the haircuts of the children. The Court also upheld the award of appellate attorney’s fees, emphasizing the disparity in the parties’ legal expenditures: Mother had incurred nearly $98,000.00 in legal fees, while Father, a licensed and practicing attorney, represented himself at times and reported no legal costs.

Importantly, the Appeals Court noted that the four-day trial provided ample opportunity for both parties to present evidence, and that Judge Melia’s rulings were grounded in the children’s best interests, rather than a mere continuation of previous Temporary Orders.

All in all, the decision and rationale of the Massachusetts Appellate Court sets an interesting precedent for allocating future appellate litigation fees, as well as the consideration of cosmetic decisions, such as haircuts, as a legal custody issue. It is a case that may shape how courts address both routine and unusual parental disputes going forward.