Purtell Rosemary ESQ

Add to Favorites

Attorneys, Accident & Property Damage Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys

Be the first to review!

Add Hours

(781) 433-9815Visit WebsiteMap & Directions197 1st Ave Ste 330Needham Heights, MA 02494 Write a Review

More Info

Other Link: http://www.purtell-law.com
Categories: Attorneys, Accident & Property Damage Attorneys, Adoption Law Attorneys, Bankruptcy Law Attorneys, Child Custody Attorneys, Criminal Law Attorneys, Divorce Assistance, Divorce Attorneys, Domestic Violence Attorneys, Family Law Attorneys, General Practice Attorneys, Immigration Law Attorneys, Labor & Employment Law Attorneys, Wills, Trusts & Estate Planning Attorneys

Gallery

Be the first to add a photo!

Reviews

Hi there!
Be the first to review!

Click to Rate

Details

Phone: (781) 433-9815

Address: 197 1st Ave Ste 330, Needham Heights, MA 02494

Website: http://www.purtell-law.com

People Also Viewed

View similar Attorneys

Suggest an Edit

Purtell Rosemary ESQ

Divorce
Im glad I found this law firm to represent me. Attorney Purtell was extremely knowledgeable regarding all of my questions. I felt comfortable with her. Divorce and family law is all she does and does it well. She was compassionate and aggressive when representing for me and my children. I highly recommend them.
Child Support
Child support is a very serious matter for Massachusetts families. While the Courts attempt to approach each case with fairness and families want a timely and amicable agreement, there are times when child support matters become clouded with emotion. Whether you are going through a divorce, separating after co-parenting, or have received information that you have a child to support, you need legal guidance and advice as a child support claim moves forward.
Child Custody and Visitation
In Massachusetts, child custody cases are decided based on the best interests of the child. Deciding what is in the best interests of a child can be a difficult task for judges and families. When a judge needs more information and insight into a situation involving the welfare, custody, or parenting plan for a child, a Guardian Ad Litem can be a valuable resource. Attorney Purtell has extensive experience serving as a Guardian Ad Litem and is often appointed by the Probate Courts. A Guardian Ad Litem conducts an impartial investigation and presents a detailed report to the Court in order to assist the judge in making decisions regarding a child. The Law Office of Rosemary Purtell provides trustworthy, impartial, and reliable Guardian Ad Litem services for Massachusetts families and will also advise clients who are participating in Guardian Ad Litem investigations.
Adoption
Paternity
The decision reviewed the history of how, first, England and then Massachusetts viewed illegitimacy. It noted that there was a presumption that a child born of a married couple was “legitimate,” in that he or she was assumed to be the legal product of the marriage, absent several very clear impediments to the husband’s biological fatherhood (such as being away around the time of conception). When those obstacles to fatherhood did not exist, the highest level of proof (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt) was necessary for a putative Father to rebut that presumption, because of the state’s compelling interest in protecting the sanctity of the marriage and family. However, over time, women were legally able to seek determination of paternity and child support from men who fathered their children out of wedlock, and the state also was able independently to seek paternity determinations and child support from such
Premarital Agreement
There were two other issues on appeal in this case, the prenuptial agreement and attorney’s fees, neither of which are relevant for the purposes of this casebook.
Guardianship
Wardwell v. Wardwell, 91 Mass. 518, 9 Allen 518, 522 (1865), in which the court held that a judge should not follow a Father’s wish regarding the guardianship of his son if custody by the proposed guardian would not be in the child’s “best interests.” It has been adhered to ever since. See, e.g....
Spousal Support
Massachusetts recently made broad-sweeping changes to its laws concerning alimony, which changes have been hailed as a model for how the legal system should adapt to an age where both spouses commonly work to financially support their families.
Child Abuse
Sharlene was born on February 24, 1994. Sharlene’s biological mother sent her to live with her aunt when the child was four. Sharlene’s biological father was absent and not a party to this case. DSS also had determined that Sharlene had been sexually abused by the boyfriend of her biological mother. DSS obtained custody of Sharlene and permitted her to live with her aunt in February 2000. The petitioner-stepfather in this case had lived with Sharlene’s aunt and married her in September 2001. In October 2001, Sharlene’s aunt adopted her. The GAL in the case noted that there were multiple reports of child abuse filed with DSS, which were all listed in the decision. Some reports were screened out, some were screened in and not supported, one or two were screened in and supported and services were instituted. The listing in the decision indicated that the injuries increased in severity, including evidence of burns in 2004 and bruises and broken bones in 2005, until the final assault in September 2005, which acts resulted in multiple trauma, life-threatening injuries, and coma. Note 6 in the decision stated, “In spite of receiving a total of fifteen G. L. c. 119, § 51A, reports over a period of three years, all alleging that Sharlene was an abused or neglected child, it was not until the last report was filed that allegations of abuse were determined to be supported. That determination came too late to protect Sharlene.” (at 761). The Court continued with a description of Sharlene’s injuries and emergency treatment, noting that she had been in a vegetative state since her emergency hospitalization. The court appointed counsel for Sharlene and a GAL, one of whose duties was to assess whether there should be a DNR for Sharlene through a substituted judgment process. Sharlene’s adoptive mother and the petitioner were arraigned, released on bail, and the adoptive mother and her own mother then either killed themselves or died through a murder-suicide pact on September 22, 10 days after Sharlene was hospitalized. On September 26, the petitioner moved to be declared Sharlene’s

Sex Crimes
Father admitted to a criminal record, including domestic A&B in September 1995, which charge was dismissed. There was no further record of domestic abuse after 1996. In addition, Father’s ex-wife told an investigator that he had not been abusive to her or to their children. Father responded to questions about his criminal history on direct and cross-examination. He was also charged with rape when he was eighteen in 1979, a crime for which he received three years of probation. The record of the trial revealed that Father was a volatile person. At one point he threatened opposing counsel, but the judge made no written findings about this, despite the fact that the record showed that the judge repeatedly had to remind him to settle down.
Drug Crimes
18 Mother became the primary caregiver, while Father had substantial visitation. Father’s family was well-educated; he had one year of college, was employed as a patient service representative, and was enrolled in a graphic design program at a local college. He also had a criminal record, including two convictions for A&B (not against Mother) and a drug offense. Two abuse prevention orders had been issued against him and an A&B charge was pending. Mother was born in Puerto Rico and was bilingual, living in New Bedford in public housing. She did not complete high school, but she earned her GED and had held several blue collar-type jobs. She had been arrested for possession of drugs and placed on probation, and she had one conviction for driving without a license.
Assault
Background: This was a high profile case that involved a child who was allegedly physically abused by her mother and stepfather (petitioner), such that her injuries resulted in neurological damage and coma. DSS (now DCF – Department of Children and Families) and the Commonwealth wanted to remove her from life support. After DSS took custody of Sharlene, her adoptive mother (who was also her maternal aunt) and only guardian, died. The stepfather, who was charged with assault and battery on Sharlene, asked the court to be adjudicated a
Murder
Restraining Order
The Legislature reached a similar conclusion in respect to shared legal or physical custody. General Laws c. 208, § 31A, provides that “if, despite the prior or current issuance of a restraining order against one parent pursuant to chapter two hundred and nine A, the court orders shared legal or physical custody... the court shall provide written findings to support such shared custody order.” A G. L. c. 209A order was outstanding in this case, and the judge made no explicit findings regarding the effect of shared custody on the child. We agree with the Appeals Court that such written findings should also be made attending specifically to the effects of domestic violence on the child and the appropriateness of the joint custody award in light of those effects.

Employment Contract
Nisi, Mother filed a Modification. She had worked from home during the marriage and after the separation as a health care consultant to different hospital systems. Father was a professional baseball scout and traveled often from February to October each year. In the off-season, he had a business running youth baseball camps at different locations in Massachusetts. A few months before the divorce, Mother was in negotiations with Caritas Health Care for a full-time job at Holy Family Hospital in Methuen. She considered buying a house within reasonable commuting distance of Methuen that would allow her to accept that job or continue her consulting practice. She claimed to have been unable to find a house in the Methuen area that met her criteria. Mother eventually found a suitable home in Derry, NH. She signed a purchase and sale agreement on the home in April 2005. She then informed Father, who did not consent to that move. In June 2005, Mother was offered a substantial job with Caritas and Holy Family. She signed an employment contract on June 27, 2005 and her primary work site became Holy Family in Methuen, although she would be overseeing other hospitals in Brockton and Fall River. The trial judge permitted Mother to move to Derry. Father appealed.
Severance Agreement
In 2001, Mother commenced her current job as a sales operation manager at Smith & Nephew in Andover, where she earned approximately $100,000 per year. In April of that year, Father took a severance package from Fleet Bank and remained unemployed until July 2002. At some point during this time period, Father met his current wife. He also rented a condominium to be closer to the child. From September 2001, until May 2002, he saw the child “almost daily.” (at 444).

Property Damage
Sometime later, Kevin learned that his mother was eligible for in-home care. He obtained 24-hour care and moved her back into the first floor of her home, a three-family house, Kevin intended to rent out the upper two floors of the house, but Francis was already living there. Following Kevin’s request, Ms. Richard filed an eviction notice against Francis, as it was believed he posed a threat to Kathleen. There was some disagreement between Kevin and Ms. Richard on this, as he claimed he asked her several times to evict Francis, but there was only evidence of one eviction filing. Francis continued to live in one of the apartments and did considerable property damage to it.

Immigration Law

Citizenship and Naturalization

Trusts and Estates

Wills
Power of Attorney
7 From footnote 5 of the case, “The attorney simultaneously advised the parties to execute other documents, including wills, healthcare proxies, and powers of attorney. Both parties executed healthcare proxies and powers of attorney, naming each other as primary decision makers. The defendant executed a will naming the plaintiff “as the guardian … of any child of mine” in the event of the defendant’s death, but the plaintiff did not execute her will until five months after the litigation was commenced, a delay she attributed to the adoption attorney’s advice to seek independent legal advice concerning her estate. The plaintiff did, however, designate the defendant as the beneficiary of life insurance policies worth $600,000. The judge found that the plaintiff “acknowledged that the parties’ situation as a same-sex couple had significant legal implications, noting that they changed the title to the house because ‘the law is so unclear with respect to gay families that I wanted to make sure that should I die, no one would remove [the defendant] and [the child] from the house.’ ”
Probate

Foreclosure
While this conflict was occurring, Kathleen remained in the nursing home. She had a reverse mortgage on her home, but the lender brought foreclosure proceedings because she violated the terms of that mortgage as well as federal reverse mortgage rules (by not living in the home). Kevin notified Ms. Richard, who hired counsel to successfully stop the foreclosure, at least temporarily. Simultaneously, Ms. Richard successfully sought court permission to clean up the property, prepare it for sale, and show it on specified dates, until it was sold. She also successfully evicted Francis from the home. She completed all those approved tasks then successfully motioned the court for license to sell the house for a specific price. Kevin did not object to that sale. She sold the home for more than the asking price and she paid various fees pursuant to that sale. She also had to reimburse Medicare for the costs they expended for Kathleen’s nursing home expenses, after Kathleen had died.

View All Services

Provided by