Maryland Divorce Lawyer Blog

In our August 25, 2011 blog we discussed custody evaluation as one of the services that can be available to parties subject to domestic litigation. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County is one of the County courts that currently offers custody evaluations to those litigants with highly contested custody matters. They also offer co-parent education classes, custody mediation, home studies and supervised visitation. These services are currently offered to parties who qualify at no cost. The litigant or the litigant’s attorney needs to either file a motion with the Court requesting these services or request the service at the scheduling conference.

Commencing October 3, 2011, the Circuit Court will begin charging for these services, due to a decrease in funding received from the State Judiciary. The fees will be as follows:

• Co-Parent Education Classes: $35 per person
• Custody Mediation: $100 per person
• Home Study: $100 per study to be split between the parties
• Custody Evaluations:$450 per study to be split between the parties

For more information on Maryland custody and those services available to parties contact an experienced Maryland Custody Attorney.

Many times in cases where I represent the Father in a Maryland custody case, child support is often an issue where perhaps some believe the man is treated somewhat inequitably. While I do not necessarily agree that is always the case, I have heard many Father’s say “If I were a woman, child support would not even be an issue, I would get what I am supposed to get.” Well for all those Dad’s out there, I am happy to report that I recently successfully argued a ‘voluntary impoverishment’ case. In this case, the non-custodial parent (who happens to be a Mother) is being forced to pay child support based upon what she has the ability to earn because the Court determined she was not doing so at the time of the hearing.

Voluntary Impoverishment cases are difficult cases to prove unless the non-custodial parent basically admits s/he not working to avoid paying child support. In Maryland, for the purposes of child support guidelines, a parent shall be considered “voluntarily impoverished” whenever the parent has made the free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond his or her control, to render himself or herself without adequate resources. The factors a Court will consider in making such a determination as to whether a parent is a voluntary impoverished are: (1) his or her current physical condition; (2) his or her respective level of education; (3) the timing of any change in employment or other financial circumstances relative to the divorce proceedings; (4) the relationship between the parties prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings; (5) his or her efforts to find an retain employment; (6) his or her efforts to secure retraining if that is needed; (7) whether he or she has ever withheld support; (8) his or her past work history; (9) the area in which the parties live and the status of the job market there; and (10) any other considerations presented by either party.

In the particular case, after considering all of the above factors the key factor for the Court was (5) her efforts to find and retain employment. At the first hearing, the Court actually ordered the Mother to make a certain number of applications each week of which a certain number had to be in person interviews, not just on-line applications. When we returned for the second hearing, the Mother had a stack of unorganized computer print outs, which although requested to be provided prior to the second hearing date, were not provided until we were in Court that day. After a review of the documents and a cross examination that revealed the Mother was limiting her availability for potential employers; turned down a job because she didn’t want to start when they offered; and was not wearing appropriate interview attire, the Court found that the Mother was voluntarily impoverishing herself. As a result the Court imputed her an income equivalent to that which she had the ability to earn. The icing on the cake for my client was that the Court also imposed monetary sanctions for the Mother’s failure to timely provide the documents brought to Court on the date of the second and final hearing. At the end of the day, this particular Dad is finally receiving a decent amount of child support based on what the Mother has the ability to earn and is really a victory for all custodial parents, whether you happen to be Mom or Dad.

Continue reading "For all those Father's with Custody in the State of Maryland" »

As we have explained in previous blogs, in most counties in Maryland, the first scheduled court date once litigation has commenced is a scheduling conference. This is an opportunity for the litigants to tell the Court what hearings/trials they will need and court services they might need. Among those services to ask for may be a custody evaluation. In counties such as Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County custody evaluations are available at no cost in those custody cases where a Judge or Master can be convinced it is necessary. These would typically be cases where custody is highly contested or other exceptional circumstances exists (an unfit home, potential abuse, etc). A description of the custody evaluations performed in Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County can be found at their respective websites.

Depending on the county where the evaluation is ordered, an evaluation typically involves a meeting with both parents with the children, possibly a visit to each parent’s home, and interview with those who frequently interact with the parents and children (counselors, school staff, family members). Once the evaluation is completed, a report is typically drafted by the evaluator where he or she will recommend a custody arrangement and their reasons for recommending same. The Court may set in a conference date for the parties to review the evaluation, or the evaluation will be sent to the parties and/or their attorneys.

Continue reading "Custody Evaluations in Maryland Child Custody Cases" »

As a family law practitioner I have represented a number of petitioners and respondents in protective order hearings throughout the state of Maryland. Unfortunately, the purpose and intent of a protective order is often misinterpreted and misused by the litigants. The purpose of the domestic violence statute as defined by Maryland case law is to protect and aid victims of domestic violence by providing a quick and effective remedy and to prevent further harm to the victim. It is not intended to produce pendente lite orders relating to custody, support, and marital property that are effective for the duration of the Protective Order. Oftentimes, Petitioners attempt to use this necessary and important statute to do just what it was not meant to do – obtain custody of a child in common with the respondent.

I recently represented a respondent in a Final Protective Order hearing , in which the petitioner used the staute to attept to gain custody of their chid. In that case the petitioner alleged an assault upon him by the respondent that resulted in their infant child being bounced off the bed, where she was laying at the time, and landing on the floor. The police were called to the residence three times over the course of less than 24 hours and no one was arrested or left the residence. Ironically, the respondent fled the state the next day with the assistance of a domestic violence program due to continuing abuse by the petitioner upon her. Nevertheless, the petitioner filed a Temporary Protective Order, which was granted and awarded him custody of the parties infant child. My client was already out of the state (with the child) and once she was served with the Order did appear for the Final Protective Order Hearing. Once the Petitioner put on his case, the evidence in my opinion, was abundantly clear that even in the light most favorable to the petitioner, that there had been at most a mutual scuffle which was instigated by the petitioner and that petitioner’s only motivation in filing the protective order was to obtain custody of the child. This is a complete misuse of the domestic violence statute, i.e. protective order statute. At the conclusion of the petitioner’s case I made a Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner’s Protective Order as he had not met his burden of proof establishing by clear and convincing evidence that abuse had occurred. The Court agreed that even in the light most favorable to the petitioner, he had not met his burden and dismissed the Protective Order without the need for my client to put on her case. In this particular situation, the Court was keenly aware of the purpose and intent of the domestic violence statute and did not grant the Final Order.

Continue reading "Maryland Protective Orders often Abused by Petitioners" »

The legislation pending to allow same-sex couples to marry is scheduled for a final vote this Friday, March 11, 2011 in the Maryland House of Delegates as reported by the Baltimore Sun. The legislation has already passed the Maryland Senate and the House Judiciary Committee. The passage of the bill, if signed by the Governor, would allow same-sex couples to marry in the State of Maryland. The passage of this bill would not afford same-sex couples who chose to marry more rights than those of their heterosexual counterparts. The bill would solely extend the civil protections already afforded to married couples to same-sex couples who chose to marry.

The same sex marriage bill passed at the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, March 4, 2011 by a 12-10 vote as the Baltimore Sun reports. This means that the bill will move to the full House of Delegates for debate, which is scheduled to start as early as this Tuesday, March 8, 2011. As we previously blogged, on February 25, 2011 the bill if passed into law would allow same sex couples to wed. Delegates who had previously opposed the bill have expressed that they will vote to pass the bill as they believe it should ultimately be up to the voters to decide. As the Sun reports, if the bill passes in the House of Delegates, “Gov. Martin O'Malley has said he will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk. Opponents could then gather the roughly 55,000 signatures needed to petition the new law to referendum, where voters in the 2012 presidential election will decide whether to repeal it or leave it on the books.

There is currently legislation pending before the Maryland General Assembly that would create a rebuttable presumption that joint legal and physical custody to each parent for equal periods of time is in the best interest of the child in certain custody proceedings. You can find the pending legislation at the Maryland General Assembly’s website. This bill would require parties in custody proceedings to overcome the statutory presumption that joint custody is in the child’s best interest. This would mean parties would enter a custody hearing on equal footing with respect to having the child in their shared custody and the Judge would have to find that one of the parties met their burden of overcoming the presumption in order to award a party sole physical or legal custody. The presumption aligns with the rights of parents without a custody order, in that parents have equal rights to their children, without a custody order stating otherwise. However, there is currently a great debate among family law attorneys over this pending legislation. Those who propose the bill support fathers’ rights, believe that parents may fight less over custody if the presumption is in place, and believe this takes such an important decision out of the court’s hands. Those who oppose the bill believe that the parties who have to take their custody case to trial should not be the ones who have a presumption of joint custody because they can not get along. Further, they do not believe that this decision should be taken out of the court’s hands, that the other best interest factors will not be considered if the presumption is in place, that those who are awarded joint custody who can not communicate will be back in court again and again, and that the current system is working well.

Continue reading "Is a Statutory Presumption of Joint Custody in Maryland in the Best Interest of Children?" »

We discussed the pending same-sex marriage legislation in our February 25, 2011 blog. In our blog we touched briefly on the rights of same sex unwed couples with children and thought the topic could use a little further explanation because there are consequences to not having a legal tie to your child(ren).

Typically, when a same sex couple adopts a child, only one of them actually adopts the child from the agency, country, service, because two people without a legal tie to one another are generally not permitted to adopt a child together. Therefore, only one parent in a same sex unwed relationship is deemed to be the legally recognized parent of the child. This means only that “legal parent” can authorize medical treatments, make medical decisions, consult with therapists, obtain emergency care for the child, obtain school records for the child, make decisions regarding the child's 504 or IEP plan, meet with teachers, etc. For example, the parent who is not legally recognized as the child’s parent cannot authorize the pediatrician to administer inoculations, tests, draw blood, or prescribe medication. This is obviously a challenge for same sex unwed parents who otherwise share in the day to day parenting responsibilities of the child and are working together as a family unit to raise the child. Some of the difficulties can be cured by subsequent adoption proceedings, powers of attorney, and adding names to birth certificates. However, the costs, time and emotion involved are substantial.

Continue reading "The Children of Same-Sex Couples in Maryland" »

As the Baltimore Sun reports, the Maryland Senate approved the Civil Marriage Protection Act on Thursday, February 25, 2011, which would allow same-sex couples to wed. Although the House of Delegates still needs to pass the Act, the Senate’s passage is still “historic.” We have previously blogged about the issues that surround the recognition of same-sex marriages in Maryland, specifically the Attorney General’s support of recognizing same sex marriages created validly in other states maryland and Maryland lawmakers attempt to block gay marriages. With this Act being passed by the Senate, it is time for us to prepare for changes we may see in our divorce and family law practice with the allowance of same-sex marriage.

The potential changes are vast but include the changes that we will see in custody and visitation law. Often same-sex couples adopt a child, however when couples are not married, only one partner is usually the legally recognized adopted parent. When these relationships end, the child is left with one legal parent and one who is presently recognized as a third party (not a parent) in the State of Maryland. For more information on the third party status that same sex parents currently face see our November 27, 2009 blog. With the passage of this legislation, same-sex couples who marry and adopt a child will both be the legal parents of the child and will be recognized as same should the marital relationship end in separation and/or divorce.

Continue reading "Same-Sex Marriage in Maryland " »

When meeting with clients initially and discussing the general course of litigation, I will advise them that discovery is part of that process, which usually prompts many questions. First and foremost is what is discovery? Discovery is a litigation tool used to gather and exchange relevant information and potential evidence from and with the opposing side prior to a trial. In a divorce matter it most frequently consists of Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Depositions of parties and witnesses. However, discovery may also involve Request for Admission of Facts, Notice of Records Depositions, and/oror Mental or physical Examinations of parties. Interrogatories are a list of a maximum of thirty questions usually involving employment history, lifestyle, assets, marital and non-marital property, child rearing responsibilities, and reasons for the dissolution of the marriage. Request for Production of Documents are a list of requests asking for documents from a party. These usually consist of financial documents, employment records, documents regarding the children, documentation of communications with the other party, documentation of expenses/debt and documents regarding the parties’ assets.

Many clients question why these documents need to be exchanged as they feel it is an invasion of their privacy. The theory of broad rights of discovery is that all parties will go to trial with as much knowledge as possible and that neither party should be able to keep secrets or have withheld discoverable information from the other. Further, client's must know that if you or the opposing party makes a request or raises a particular issue in a matter, then the issue must be explored. The old adage "what is good for the goose is good for the gander", often applies in these situations. If a document is requested that is particularly confidential in nature or for some reason should not be turned over to opposing counsel, clients can seek protection of that document by filing a motion with the court. If the opposing side is not turning over their documents and answers in a timely fashion then one may file a motion with the court asking them to compel these documents or to prohibit that party from entering any evidence regarding same at trial. If a party tries to introduce a document at trial that was not turned over to the other side prior to the hearing then the Judge may prohibit it from being entered into evidence. The discovery process is governed by the Maryland Rules commencing with Rule 2-401. Clients should also understand that while all pleadings in a matter are filed with the court, the discovery requests and responses are not. The court will not see the Answers to Interrogatories or Responses to Request for Production of Documents unless they are admitted in evidence at a trial.

Continue reading "Discovery in Maryland Divorce Matters" »

While your spouse’s substance abuse issues may not affect you nearly as much since you have separated, they certainly will continue to affect your children. Unfortunately, many clients are faced with these issues. It is important to address all substance abuse concerns at the beginning of a matter, by bringing it to your attorney or the court’s attention. In many Maryland counties the Court, when requested, will order a substance abuse evaluation of the parties. Be aware that if you request an evaluation of your spouse, the Court will often order that the evaluation be performed on both parties. The evaluation will most likely consist of an interview including substance abuse history, and treatment and also in some cases urinalysis or other form of drug/alcohol screen. If a party asks, and the Court feels is it necessary, continuing drug screens of a party may be ordered. This allows for the party to gain visitation or custody with their child or children after maintaining positive results. If a custody evaluation is performed in a matter the evaluator will also utilize the information gained from drug screens or a substance abuse evaluation to assist them in making their recommendation.

Continue reading "How to Handle Your Spouse’s Substance Abuse Issues During a Maryland Divorce Proceeding" »

As reported in our September 30, 2010 blog , there are two parts to custody in the State of Maryland, legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody is the ability to make decisions regarding the child's health, education, religion and other matters of significant importance. Legal custody can be awarded solely to one parent or jointly to both parents (there are also variations on joint legal custody, such as having one parent as a tie breaker or a requirement to mediate when parents cannot reach a joint decision or assigning each parent sole legal decision making with respect to different issues, ie Mom makes the decisions on education and Dad makes the decisions on health matters and the parents have joint legal custody on religious issues). Maryland courts have held that the strongest factor in determining whether to award joint legal custody is the ability of the parents to communicate with each other regarding the children.

Many clients have questions as to exactly how a joint legal custody situation should operate. Questions such as, “if a doctor makes a recommendation for my child, I do not have to check with the other parent first, right?”, or “do I need to relay all information regarding my child to the other parent?” We tell clients that they can not take a doctors recommendation as the final decision without first discussing it with the other parent, unless it is an emergency situation. Ideally, the parents should attend the medical appointment together so decisions can be reached while with the doctor and the parents are hearing the same information from the doctor. In a joint legal custody situation, ALL decisions regarding the child’s health, education, and religion, whether it be the choice to administer a certain prescription medication, decisions regarding a child’s I.E.P., where the child will attend school, etc. must be discussed with the other parent and a joint decision must be reached.

Continue reading "What does Joint Legal Custody in the State of Maryland really mean?" »

As a follow up to our June 30, 2010 and July 8, 2010 blogs on Facebook evidence in Maryland family law proceedings, we have compiled a top five do’s and don’ts for Facebook for parents in the midst of custody litigation.

1. Do disable your Facebook account. If you can’t bring yourself to do it, make your presence on Facebook as minimal as possible, and we mean minimal.

2. Do set your Facebook page to private so only those who are your friends can view your page, and while you are at it do a “spring cleaning” of your friend list, eliminating those who are unnecessary. Friends should only be those who have no connection with your ex or your ex's family and/or friends. You never know who is viewing/printing information from your account and passing it along.

3. Do eliminate all photographs, wall posts, information that could be damaging to your matter, such as posts or photographs related to illegal substances, partying, unsuitable living conditions, boasting, and/or unemployment. In other words, eliminate all posts or photographs that you would not want a Judge to see.

4. Do NOT post pictures of your child doing anything that could be considered inappropriate. Do not let others post anything inapporpriate of your child either.
We recently had a case where the grandmother had a photograph posted of her grandchild (the child who was the subject of the custody dispute) sipping an alcoholic beverage. Needless to say the Judge was not amused.

5. DO NOT post status updates or wall posts regarding your ex or your kids, whether it has to do with your ongoing custody battle, or your most recent exchange of a child. During a protective order hearing I recently tried, the Judge found a parent’s posting of “I’m going to take you down” was enough of a threat to grant a final protective order. In other words, keep your custody battle off of Facebook! In addition, urge your mother, brother, friends, and next door neighbors to keep any and all posts regarding your ex off of Facebook.

1. Well in advance of each holiday, refer to your existing Court Order, Separation Agreement, and/or Judgment of Absolute Divorce to determine what your Order and/or Agreement sets forth for each holiday.

2. Communicate to the other parent, (preferably in writing via e-mail or text), your interpretation of the existing Order and/or written Agreement. Specifically spell out who has the child(ren) on which day or part of the day, the times and where exchanges are to take place. Ask the parent to confirm that is their understanding.

3. If there is not an existing Order and/or written Agreement, again, well in advance of the holiday, contact the other parent (preferably in writing) and set forth your specific proposal and ask them for there thoughts and comments.

4. Put your child(ren) first, not yourself. Understand that the child(ren) should have the opportunity to spend part of the holiday which each parent and their respective families, regardless of your feelings for the other parent. Do not be selfish, it will come back to haunt you.

5. If there is not an existing Order and/or written Agreement, keep the child(ren) out of the decision making process. This in an adult issue, keep it that way.

6. Keep the holiday schedules simple and fair.

7. Keep your emotions in check. Do not get emotional with your child(ren) or the other parent about the schedule.

8. Do not place your child(ren) in the middle, do not make them choose who they want to be with, and do not make them feel guilty because they will not be with you the entire holiday. Remember, your children did not ask to be in this position.

9. Use common sense. Do not call the police because the other parent said they would have the child(ren) back at 4:00 p.m. and it is 4:10 p.m. Call the other parent and ask for their estimated time of arrival.

10. As a last resort, you can seek the assistance of the Circuit Court in your Maryland county/city and have a Judge decide how your family will spend the holidays. Each County and the City have different protocols for addressing these holiday access issues. See our November 17, 2010 blog for local Circuit Court "Holiday Court" protocols.

With the holidays approaching many clients may be facing uncertainty or conflicts as to where their child(ren) will be spending the holiday. We always advise clients to plan holidays far in advance so a schedule can be arranged that is best for the child(ren). It is important to develop a schedule that is not too overwhelming for children, so they can enjoy the holiday without exchanges at inopportune times, such as midnight on Christmas Eve, or too many exchanges in one day. It is also important to remember not to make plans for your child(ren) on the holiday until you know what the schedule will be. Lastly, for your child’s sake, explain to them how the holiday schedule will go, do not seek their input or place a guilt trip on your child(ren) for not being with you for the holiday or a portion of the holiday, and be flexible and accommodating to making the holiday work for everyone. Everyone does include the other parent and his or her family.

If you are unable to reach a holiday arrangement with your child’s parent you may turn to what many practitioners refer to as “holiday court”. Most Circuit Courts throughout the State of Maryland implement a specific protocol for what is known as “holiday court,” or the process that takes place in order to resolve these holiday access disputes. We have collected information from the nearby Circuit Courts to find out how they will be handling this year’s holiday disputes.

Continue reading "2010 Holiday Disputes in Maryland Custody and Visitation Matters" »

I recently tried a custody matter in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, in which I represented the father of the minor child. The father came to our office in January 2010, after he had arranged for his minor child to reside with him upon learning that the child's mother was not properly caring for him. The minor child had resided with his mother for nine years, but she had recently changed residences, which our client had great concerns about. Prior to January 2010, our client, who resides in a neighboring state, was visiting with the child every other weekend, when the parties were on good terms. After our client made arrangements for his son to live with him, the mother filed a Complaint for an Emergency Hearing, which was scheduled for March 2010 at the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Due to a heavy docket we were sent to mediation and a hearing was not held. We were able to negotiate a temporary schedule which granted our client temporary sole physical and legal custody and allowed the mother visitation with the minor child.

The case was then set in for a final custody hearing, which was held in November 2010. At the final hearing, both parties were seeking sole legal and physical custody of the minor child. However, after evidence was presented regarding the parties respective living situations, stability, fitness, ability to maintain relationships for the minor child, and economic status, among other factors, the Judge awarded our client sole legal and physical custody of the minor child with visitation to the mother of the child. The factors that were considered are in line with those named in our October 23, 2009 blog, which details factors considered in custody disputes.

Continue reading "Monica Scherer Wins Contested Custody Case for out-of-state Father in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland" »

There are two parts to custody in the State of Maryland, legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody is the ability to make decisions regarding the child's health, education, religion and other matters of significant importance. Legal custody can be awarded solely to one parent or jointly to both parents (there are also variations on joint legal custody, such as having on parent as a tie breaker or a requirement to mediate when parents cannot reach a joint decision or assigning each parent sole legal decision making with respect to different issues, ie Mom makes the decisions on education and Dad makes the decisions on religion and the parents have joint legal custody on religious issues). Maryland courts have held that the strongest factor in determining whether to award joint legal custody is the ability of the parents to communicate with each other regarding the children.

Physical custody pertains to with whom the child resides. Physical custody can be awarded primarily to one parent or it can be shared between the parents. The Maryland case Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290, 508 A.2d 964 (1986), sets forth a list of several of the factors a Court will consider for the award of shared physical custody. These considerations include:

i. capacity of the parents to communicate and reach shared decisions affecting the child's welfare;
ii. willingness of the parents to share custody;
iii. fitness of the parents;
iv. relationship established between the child and each parent;
v. preference of the child;
vi. potential disruption of the child's social and school lives;
vii. geographic proximity of the parental homes;
viii. demands of parental employment;
ix. age and number of the children;
x. sincerity of both parents' requests;
xi. financial status of the parties; and
xii. benefit to the parents.

Continue reading "Better Parenting After Divorce?" »

Third party visitation cases have become increasing difficult cases to establish ordered child access. The standard has been and remains that in order for grandparents or other third parties to be awarded visitation with a grandchild/child they must show either parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances. For more information regarding third party visitation see our August 11, 2009 blog post. Maryland’s second highest court recently filed an opinion in the case of Brandenburg v. LaBarre on June 2, 2010, which held that in order to prove exceptional circumstances in a third party visitation case, third parties must show that without visitation there will be significant harm to the children. I am of the opinion that prior to this decision, exceptional circumstances could be proven without proving actual/significant harm to the children.

This visitation case was originally heard in 2008 in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The LaBarres, the children’s grandparents, filed a Complaint for Visitation after they had a falling out with their son and daughter-in-law, the Brandeburg’s. The Brandenburgs have four young children and until February 2008 the LaBarres cared for the children often and spent a great amount of time with the children. After hearing testimony from both sides, including the LaBarre’s testimony that exceptional circumstances existed because the children had previously spent so much time with them, the Judge granted the LaBarres one overnight visit a month and one week in the summer with the children. The Judge noted that the LaBarres had shown no evidence that the children had been harmed by lack of contact with them, but that it was unreasonable for them to have to do so given they had no contact with the children for some time. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Judge’s decision stating that the test for exceptional circumstances is whether or not the children are suffering significant harm because they are not allowed contact with the third party seeking visitation. In this case, because the parents were fit, they have the right to decide who can visit their children unless these exceptional circumstances are proven.

Continue reading "Maryland Court of Special Appeals Denies Grandparent Visitation" »

The Maryland Daily Record reported on June 28, 2010 that 81% of divorce attorneys have used Facebook as a form of evidence. It is a growing phenomenon in the family law practice and it has occurred in our practice in divorce hearings, custody hearings, and protective order hearings. The statements on a spouse or parent’s Facebook page may be just enough, and appears to have been just enough, to push the Judge in one direction or another in a case. Most Judges may not be aware of the context of a picture or statement on Facebook and with blurry evidentiary rules regarding their admission a picture that is funny to you may appear disturbing to a Judge.

Many may question why a Facebook page would be relevant in a divorce, custody or protective order matter. As explained in our February 28, 2010 blog, a fault based divorce such as adultery requires proof of both the opportunity and disposition for the adulterous relationship to be proven. A Facebook page displaying pictures or words of affection may be the key to proving the disposition element needed for adultery. As explained in our October 23, 2009 blog, in custody proceedings a significant factor that is considered is parental fitness. A Facebook page displaying irresponsible habits of a parent may question the fitness of that parent in caring for their child. As explained in our August 16, 2009 blog, the alleged abuse that is needed to enter a protective order can consist of a threat of serious imminent bodily harm. Such a threat on a Facebook page may be enough for a Judge to enter a protective order.

Continue reading "Facebook Page Evidence in Maryland Divorce Cases" »

Maryland lawmakers passed the legislation that will update the Maryland child support guidelines for the first time in over twenty years on Monday. The new adjusted guidelines will go into effect October 1, 2010 and will only apply to new child support cases (i.e. establishments) or motions to modify child support after that date. The guidelines cap has been raised to $15,000 combined earnings per month, rather than the current $10,000. Most significantly, the new guidelines will adjust to the current increased cost of raising a child.

Continue reading "New Maryland Child Support Guidelines Legislation Passed April 12, 2010" »

I recently received the written report and recommendation of the Master in the case detailed in the February 14, 2010 blog, Relocation Custody Cases in Maryland - Part Two. The findings, report and recommendation were favorable to my client. Among many other things, the Master specifically found that the mother was not willing to foster a relationship between the minor child and the father and that an award of sole custody to the mother would not be in the minor child's best interest. Accordingly, the Master recommended that the parties have joint legal and physical custody of the minor child (with a one week on, one week off access schedule for each parent) until he commences Kindergarten, at which time the father would have primary physical custody of the child here in Maryland with specified visitation to the Mother.

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.

As I have said before and I will say again, child custody relocation cases are extremely difficult, especially from the perspective of the bench when the 'primary caregiver' is the parent relocating. In this case, the Mother moved to another State for a new job earning approximately, what will net to be about, $20,000.00 more a year. She does not have family there (actually moved further from all of her family), she has not attempted to facilitate any access for the Father, and she disobeyed an existing order of court. On the other hand, all of Father's family lives in Maryland, he owns a home in Maryland, Mother has a sister in Maryland, and Mother did not even attempt to find another position in the state of Maryland (and did I mention she voluntarily left her employment in Maryland, she was not unemployed).

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.

I recently tried what started off as a fairly typical Maryland custody case that turned into a relocation case four months before the scheduled trial date. The decision still has not been rendered by the Court, but nevertheless thought the situation is one in which many folks find themselves and could relate. The basic sets of facts are as follows: parties meet, relationship of some sort ensued (depends on which party you ask) and a child was born. Parties lived together off and on (again, depending on which party you ask) and ultimately began living in their own residences separate from one another. Eventually, the child would generally spend most weekends and extended blocks of time with one parent and weekdays with the other. Although the weekday parent typically controlled when and how frequently the other parent would see the child. Eventually, the weekday parent filed for custody and child support and other parent filed a Counter-Complaint for Custody. The case moved through the litigation process as most cases do, but four months prior to the trial, the weekday parent gives notice through counsel that she will be relocating to another state, approximately 8.5 hours away. As a side note there was a Consent Protective Order in place (I did not represent my client at the time), whereby a child access schedule was put into place where the parties had joint custody and the Father had access three overnights the first week of the month, two overnights the second weekend of the month, and two overnights the third weekend of the month. The Mother had the remainder of the time.

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

With the holidays approaching many parents in divided households may be facing uncertainty or conflicts as to where their child(ren) will be spending the holiday. The Maryland Court system in years past has implemented specific instructions for what is known as “holiday court,” or the process that takes place in order to resolve these holiday access disputes. We have collected information from a few of the surrounding venues to find out how they will be handling this year’s (2009) holiday disputes.

Baltimore County Circuit Court
Baltimore County Circuit Court will consider holiday visitation disputes from November 23, 2009-December 19, 2009, and all disputes shall be submitted to Judge Dugan, who will assign each matter to a particular Judge on a rotating basis. When the case is assigned to the Judge who will hear the holiday dispute, the party should contact the Judge’s chambers with the name and contact information for all parties involved, the details of any efforts to reach an agreement between the parties, what relief each party is requesting, and what each party is proposing the holiday access schedule be.

Baltimore City Circuit Court
Baltimore City Circuit Court is hearing holiday visitation issues on December 8, 2009 and December 17, 2009 in front of Master Kelly. All requests for a holiday visitation hearing should be filed with the clerk’s office with a copy sent to the Family Law Coordinator as well.

Harford County Circuit Court
Harford County Circuit Court will forward all pleadings involving holiday disputes to the Family Law Coordinator, who will set the dispute in for a hearing either before a Judge or Master.

Continue reading "Holiday Disputes in Maryland Custody and Visitation Matters" »

Clients often ask if their soon to be ex-spouse, ex-spouse or co-parent of their child(ren) will be able to change a custody order after it is entered at their free will whenever they want to? The answer is that the other parent may file with the Court to modify the existing order at anytime. Meeting the two-prong test required to change and/or modify custody is however not an easy task. First, the moving party must show a material change in circumstances. That begs the question, what is a material change in circumstance? There are a number of cases which assist us in defining it, but generally speaking it is one or a combination of the following: a significant change that occurred since the entry of the initial order; something material that was unknown at the time the initial order was passed has since come to light; and/or something since the entry of the Order is adversely impacting or could adversely impact the welfare of the child(ren). One circumstance that has been ruled a material change in Maryland is the relocation of a parent. Braun v. Headley, 131 Md. App. 588 (2000). When facing relocation of a parent, the court may consider such factors as a potential change in visitation schedule, child’s school change, the moving parent’s reason for the move, and the ability of the parents to both maintain a relationship with the child after the move when deciding whether or not the move will constitute a material change in circumstances. More often than not, a relocation of a parent is a material change in circumstance. Assuming the parent seeking to modify the existing Order establishes a material change in circumstance and the Court so finds, the second prong of the two prong test is what is in the best interest of the minor child(ren). In deciding what is in the best interest of the child(ren) the court considers a host of factors. Some of those factors include 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). It is important to keep in mind that even with a finding of a material change in circumstance, a modification of the custody order still must be determined by the court to be in the child(ren)'s best interest.

Continue reading "Modification of Child Custody in Maryland" »

Many clients incorrectly assume that mothers are favored over fathers in a custody case. The truth is that the “tender years doctrine,” has been abolished in all fifty states as it violates constitutional law. This doctrine, which is what many clients are relying on when assuming that a mother may be favored over a father, stated that young children should be placed with their mother unless she was unfit. Since the abolishment of this doctrine in Maryland, neither parent is given preference for custody based on exclusively their gender.

In Maryland, the standard that is used when determining custody of a child is the “best interest standard.” This is a standard in which Judges consider a number of factors such as the parents fitness, relationship of child and parents, children’s current environment, ability to maintain natural family relationships, who has been the primary care giver, wishes of child in some circumstances, any agreement the parents have made, prior abandonment of a child by a parent, the age and health of the child, and many, many other factors to determine what custody arrangement would be in the best interest of the child.

I have been on both sides of a custody battle, having represented both Mom's and Dad's and have prevailed in obtaining custody for both genders. Every case is different and has its own nuances, but I am of the opinion, that assuming both parents are fit and absent some extraordinary circumstance such as mental illness, physical /mental abuse, abandonement, and/or manipluation, Courts generally focus on who has been the primary care giver (oftentimes the responsibilities have been shared), stability of the parents and their living situationas and environment, parental and other familial involvement, the ability of each parent to work and communicate with the other like adults on child related issues, and the availability of each parent for the child(ren). Obviously, this is a generalization and each case is different, but I believe those factors hold considerable weight with most Judges. Oftentimes judicial custody determinations will hinge on one particular issue because the parties are otherwise relatively on the same playing field in the other factors. Rest assured however, the tender years doctrine has been abolished and Mothers and Fathers stand on equal legal footing as far as gender is concerned.

Continue reading "Maryland Custody: Are Mom’s Favored over Dad’s?" »