MANAS RANJAN PANDA v. MOUSHMITA PANDA (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The self-represented plaintiff father appeals from a judgment of the Probate and Family Court issued after trial deciding his complaint for modification. We review an order deciding a complaint for modification for abuse of discretion. Macri v. Macri, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 362, 369 (2019). “Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.” G.E.B. v. S.R.W., 422 Mass. 158, 172 (1996), quoting Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 52 (a) (1995).

The father argues first that the judge miscalculated his income, that of the defendant mother, who is also pro se, and the amount of child support under the guidelines. As to his own income, he repeats the arguments made below about his actual income, and the legitimate reasons he asserts for the transfer of at least one property to his parents. The judge however attributed to the father the amount of income found, less than a year before the complaint for modification was filed in this case, in the judge's previous modification judgment. We review the judge's attribution of income for an abuse of discretion. See Davae v. Davae, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 54, 57 (2021).

The judge found the financial statements of the father not credible and found, “Father has deliberately attempted to obfuscate his real estate holdings and the rental income they generate in an attempt to lower his child support obligation.” The judge wrote,

“I do not credit Father's financial statement as it relates to his claimed income. I do not credit his self-created financial documents, which he alleges reflect his income. I find that an attribution of income to Father is appropriate in these circumstances. Father has made deliberate efforts to divest himself of his real estate holdings and to reduce his rental income by transferring title in valuable properties for no consideration to his parents. I find that Father's income, for purposes of calculating child support, is $2,681 per week, which is consistent with his earnings in 2022 but significantly less than his historic earnings.”

We owe the judge's credibility judgments deference. The father has not borne his burden of showing that any of the facts found were clearly erroneous. We therefore conclude there was no abuse of discretion in this attribution of income to the father.

As for the mother's income, the father points to three biweekly pay stubs from late 2024 from her employer showing gross income of $3359 and actual take-home pay of $2150. He argues that in order to calculate the mother's 2024 income from the employer, the gross amount on these biweekly paystubs should have been multiplied by twenty-six.

But this extrapolation from these three paystubs by the father is not warranted. The judge calculated the mother's 2024 income by using the actual total 2024 income reported by her employers on the mother's Federal W-2 forms. There was no error.

Finally, the child support calculations in support of the father's proposed child support amount utilize the income numbers he proposes, rather than those properly utilized by the judge. He is not entitled to a recalculation on that basis, and he has not met his burden to show that the amount ordered by the judge was the result of an abuse of discretion or other error of law.¹

The father also complains that the judge did not permit him to enroll one of the children in therapy without the mother's permission. He points to evidence that the children will not speak to their paternal grandmother or communicate with their half-sibling, father's new child with his second wife, that phone calls with him while the children are with the mother last under a minute, and that one of the children says to him, “You hate me.”

The judge, however, found that there was no credible evidence the mother was not meeting the children's mental health needs, and found as facts that “Both children are doing well academically and socially. Both children are healthy and thriving.”² Of course one can imagine a circumstance where discord such as that described in the evidence warranted therapy or counseling of some kind, and where one parent's refusal to allow it was not in a child's best interests, but given the judge's findings, which have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, we see no abuse of discretion or other error of law in the judge's ruling.

Judgment dated April 22, 2025, affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that the mother asserts the father is not paying the ordered amount of child support. Without reaching any conclusion about the facts of the matter, we note that any issue of compliance with the trial court's order cannot properly be brought before us in the first instance in this matter, but must be addressed first in the trial court.

2.   Though it is not strictly relevant to the question of therapy –- after all, the court must act to protect children, not punish parents -– we note that the judge said, “I make no findings as to the source of the animosity in his household amongst the various members of his family and the parties’ children. No credible evidence was presented at trial that Mother has contributed in any manner to the issues in Father's household.”