For more information on domestic violence proceedings contact an experienced Maryland family law attorney.

The anonymity features of social networking sites may present an obstacle to litigants seeking to authenticate messages posted on them. See, e.g., Paul W. Grimm et al., Back to the Future: Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. and New Findings on the Admissibility of Electronically Stored Information, 42 AKRON L. REV. 357, 370-71 (2009). That is the issue we encounter here: whether the State adequately established the author of the cyber message in question. Despite the pervasive popularity of social networking sites and their potential as treasure troves of valuable evidence, Maryland appellate courts have not yet addressed the issue of authenticating anonymous or pseudonymous documents printed from social media Web sites. Notably, neither the Maryland Rules of Evidence nor the Maryland Rules of Procedure specifically address the authentication of such evidence. Perhaps this is because courts that have generally considered the issue of authentication of electronic communications have concluded that they may be authenticated under existing evidentiary rules governing authentication by circumstantial evidence. We see no reason why social media profiles may not be circumstantially authenticated in the same manner as other forms of electronic communication – by their content and context. The inherent nature of social networking Web sites encourages members who choose to use pseudonyms to identify themselves by posting profile pictures or descriptions of their physical appearances, personal background information, and lifestyles. This type of individualization may lend itself to authentication of a particular profile page as having been created by the person depicted in it.

In this particular criminal case, the Defendant was disputing that a MySpace page should be used as evidence because one could not prove that it was the person's page it purported to be.

I believe the mother will probably file exceptions to the Master's recommendations, which will require her to meet the requirments of Maryland Rule 9-208. An Exceptions Hearing, is not a de novo hearing (a re-trial), instead the Judge assigned the case decides the exceptions based on the evidence presented to the Master unless the excepting party sets forth with particularilty the additional evidence to be offered and the reasons why the evidence was not offered before the Master, and the Judge determines that the additional evidence should be considered. If additional evidence is to be considered, the Judge may remand the matter back to the Master to hear and consider the additional evidence or at that point to conduct a de novo hearing.

Adultery, or voluntary intercourse between a spouse and an individual other than their spouse who is of the opposite sex, is a fault based ground for divorce that requires no waiting period to file. However, while you do not have to show evidence of the actual intercourse between your spouse and his or her paramour you must be able to prove both the opportunity and disposition for the adulterous intercourse to be proven.

In order to file for an absolute divorce based on desertion the desertion must continue for one year uninterrupted before filing, must have been a final and deliberate act, and there must be no reasonable hope of reconciliation. Desertion can be either actual or constructive. Actual desertion occurs when the spouse leaves the home without cause, and constructive desertion occurs when a spouse's conduct justifies a leaving spouse to do so.

Cruelty of treatment and excessively vicious conduct are both fault based grounds that do not require any waiting period. Both grounds involve acts or a single act of violent conduct. Cruelty of treatment involves conduct that threatens or inflicts bodily harm upon a person or minor child of the parties. Excessively vicious conduct is usually acts of extreme domestic violence and may require a pattern of this violence.

In order to file for a divorce on the grounds of incarceration of your spouse, he or she must have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, sentenced to serve at least three years in a penal institution, and already had served one year of that sentence.

For more information on filing for a divorce on fault based grounds contact an experienced Maryland divorce attorney.

In Maryland, in an establishment case, which this case is with the relocation twist, the Court must determine what is in the best interest of the minor child. Those factors include, but are not limited to, the fitness of the parents, the desires and agreements of the parents, the potential to maintain family relationships, the child’s preference if he or she is at a sufficient age, opportunities affecting the child, the age and health of the child, and the residence of the parents and opportunity for visitation. Montgomery County v. Sanders, 38 Md. App. 406 (1997). Relocation cases tap into additional factors, such as (1) the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the parents, siblings and other significant persons in the child's life, (2) the age, developmental stage, needs of child, and most likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, mental, and educational development, (3) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements; (4) whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general quality of life for both the custodial party seeking relocation and the child, including, but not limited to financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity; (5) the reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation; and (6) any other factors affecting the best interest of the child. In this particular case, among other things, what I thought was of utmost importance to point out to the Court was an additional factor, that the Mother has established a pattern of conduct attempting to thwart the relationship between the child and his Father and if she could not follow an existing Order of Court, why would she follow another Order if the Court grants her custody. In addition, when weighing stability (in my opinion we had a lot of stability factors on our side), there is a lot to be said for the stability of the child remaining in the environment and community in which they live. In the interest of the limited time we had for our closing arguments, I asked the Court to re-read Dominques v. Johnson and Braun v. Headley, in my opinion two of the leading cases on relocation, and to consider Shunk v. Walker and the impact that decision had on 9-105 of the Family Law Article . We are a little over a month out and still no decision, stay tuned for Part Three.

As the Father's attorney, upon notification of Mother's intended move, I filed an Emergency Motion with the Circuit Court where the action was pending to prevent the removal of the minor child from the State. The Motion was denied and the parties were directed to follow the existing Order (the Protective Order). I filed a Motion for Reconsideration, it was again denied, and the parties were directed by the Court that the Protective Order controlled and access should continue in accordance therewith. Needless to say, Mother moved with the minor child and did not follow the Protective Order access schedule and a Petition for Contempt was filed (a hearing has still not been held by the Court). Father went for almost two months without seeing his child in accordance with the Protective Order schedule (with the exception of a few days over the Christmas holiday) when this case went to trial.

PART TWO coming soon