THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, September 12, 2025 Page 17 SCHOOL | FROM PAGE 1 Promote Student Learning and Mental Health seeks to keep students’ eyes on their classwork and instructors and away from their cell phones.” “By removing personal cell phone use from the classroom, Massachusetts public schools will be places where students can focus on learning,” a statement from Sen. Spilka added. On Monday, Vice Chair Spadafora presented her resolution and gave some Malden-specific anecdotes, which illustrated why this community was unique with respect to demographics and diversity, and in turn needed a Malden-centric cell phone policy for its public schools. The Ward 3 School Committee rep noted that the committee had already approved and set up a Malden Public Schools cell phone policy — districtwide — and that students in grades K-8 already had their phones secured during the school day, while high school students were required to keep their cell phones out of sight while in class. Vice Chair Spadafora said the existing policy, which was adopted by the Malden School Committee in 2023, is working effectively and that part of the reason for the resolution is to try and help ensure the present policy would continue. She explained that due to Malden Public Schools cultural diversity and many languages spoken — over 70 at Malden High School alone — that cell phones with their language translation apps are used by students on a daily basis to effectively communicate with their peers and also educators and administrators. After Vice Chair Spadafora read the resolution she prepared aloud, the members of the School Committee voted unanimously to adopt it and send it forward. Voting in favor were members Robert McCarthy Jr. (Ward 2), Vice Chair Spadafora (Ward 3), Elizabeth Hortie (Ward 5), Joseph Gray (Ward 6), Keith Bernard (Ward 7), Sharyn RoseZeiberg (Ward 8), Chairperson and Malden Mayor Gary Christenson and, attending and voting remotely, Michael Drummey (Ward 1) and Dawn Macklin (Ward 4). *** Following is the text of the resolution presented by Malden School Committee Vice Chair Jennifer Spadafora and unanimously passed by the members at Monday night’s meeting. WHEREAS: The Massachusetts State Legislature is considering passage of Bill S.2581, “An Act to Promote Student Learning and Mental Health” and WHEREAS: Bill S.2581 would require school districts to implement policies prohibiting cell phone usage and the actual possession of personal electronic devices during the school day and during school sponsored activities during the school day; and WHEREAS: The Malden School Committee adopted Policy JICJ governing cell phone use on December 3, 2023, that ensures personal electronic devices do not pose a distraction to students during instructional time; and WHEREAS: The Malden School Committee believes that a blanket “bell to bell” policy undermines the important work of helping high school students develop their own maturity in managing their use of cell phones and other forms of technology; and WHEREAS: Malden High School has over 70 languages spoken by our students and electronic devices have allowed our English Language Learners to communicate effectively with their English-speaking peers; and WHEREAS: Our young adults in the Malden Public Schools have shown they are capable of putting phones away when their use is inappropriate and that establishing boundaries with technology is an important part of students’ development and they should be allowed to grow in this way. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: that the Malden School Committee supports S.2561, “An Act to promote student learning and mental health” as usage of cell phones during school hours is a valid concern however, this Committee believes local school committees and boards should retain the autonomy to determine how best to address this issue within their communities and urges Massachusetts legislature to amend Bill S.2581, as a one size fits all policy is not an appropriate solution. T his July 23, 2021, decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld well settled Trust law and has provided the elder bar with more certainty in drafting irrevocable trusts in the context of Medicaid planning. MassHealth’s legal department could not persuade the SJC that a special or limited power of appointment contained in the applicant’s irrevocable trust caused the trust principal to be countable thereby resulting in ineligibility for MassHealth benefits for the applicant. The SJC cited the Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers, Section 17.2 (2011) and many Superior Court and Appellate Court cases as grounds for its decision against MassHealth. The benefits of this SJC case for the elderly in Massachusetts are profound. MassHealth had, for a period of about 10 years or so, been attacking almost any provision contained in an irrevocable trust in order to deny MassHealth benefits, even though so many of its legal arguments had been in complete contradiction with well settled case Connect with Malden Cub Scouts this fall T he Cub Scout calendar begins in the fall, and that makes it a perfect time for children in grades K-5 to connect with scouting. Malden Cub Scout Pack 603 is reconvening for the fall with a special Welcome/Welcome Back meeting on Thursday, Sept. 18, at 6 p.m. We have activities and volunteerism planned for the coming year, and we invite the community to connect and learn more. We’ll also celebrate with some light refreshments. Cub Scout Pack 603 meets at First Baptist Church of Malden (493 Main St.). Contact Scoutmaster Jason Altieri at sleepyjay2010@gmail.com for more information or find us on Facebook by searching “Malden Cub Scouts”. THE FOURNIER MASS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT CASE law and statutory law. Its arguments had seemed to be more based upon its own ideology as to desired outcomes as opposed to them being based upon the actual law. In the Fournier case, the applicant and her husband were the Settlors of an irrevocable trust. There was a provision in the trust granting the applicant, during her lifetime, a limited power of appointment to appoint all or any portion of the trust principal to a nonprofit or charitable organization over which she has no controlling interest. MassHealth argued that the applicant could appoint the trust principal to a nonprofit nursing home in order to pay for her nursing home care, and as a result, the entire principal of the trust was countable thereby making the applicant ineligible for MassHealth benefits. The SJC went on to state that since the applicant possessed a special or limited power of appointment, she could not appoint an otherwise permissible beneficiary in any way that could benefit herself. As a matter of trust common law, statutory law and case law, a special or limited power of appointment, by definition, can never be utilized by the Donee of the power to benefit himself or herself in any way. After MassHealth appealed the Superior Court decision, the SJC took the case directly from the Superior Court thereby bypassing the Appeals Court altogether. The SJC also made it clear that a use and occupancy provision contained in an irrevocable trust likewise did not make the trust principal countable. The decision also made it clear that a trust instrument must be read as a whole in order to determine the Settlor’s intent when he or she executed the document. Trust provisions should not be read in isolation. Rather, they should be read in the context of reading the Trust instrument as a whole. Only then can you determine the Settlor’s intent when creating the Trust. This was an impactful opinion rendered by the SJC based upon excellent legal reasoning. A provision in an irrevocable Trust providing for the Settlor to use, occupy and possess the underlying real estate is key to being able to claim a residential real estate tax exemption in a City or Town that provides for one, without the necessity of reserving a life estate in the deed going into the irrevocable Trust. A provision in an irrevocable Trust allowing for the Trustee to distribute principal to a class of beneficiaries consisting of the descendants of the Settlor likewise would be upheld based upon the Fournier case reasoning, as the Settlor would not be able to benefit from such a provision and would not, under any circumstances, have a right to receive any principal distributions. Joseph D. Cataldo is an estate planning/elder law attorney, Certified Public Accountant, Certified Financial Planner, AICPA Personal Financial Specialist and holds a master’s degree in taxation.
18 Publizr Home