Child Custody

Published on: November 16, 2010

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

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 →

Published on: September 30, 2010

Better Parenting After Divorce?

By Monica Scherer

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 →

Published on: July 1, 2010

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Denies Grandparent Visitation

By Monica Scherer

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 →

Published on: June 30, 2010

Facebook Page Evidence in Maryland Divorce Cases

By Monica Scherer

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 →

Published on: April 14, 2010

New Maryland Child Support Guidelines Legislation Passed April 12, 2010

By Monica Scherer

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 →

Published on: March 11, 2010

Relocation Custody Cases in Maryland – Part Three

By Monica Scherer

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.

Published on: February 14, 2010

Relocation Custody Cases in Maryland – Part Two

By Monica Scherer

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.

For more information, contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740

Published on: February 12, 2010

Relocation Custody Cases in Maryland – Part One

By Monica Scherer

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

Published on: December 3, 2009

Holiday Disputes in Maryland Custody and Visitation Matters

By Monica Scherer

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 →

Published on: November 25, 2009

Modification of Child Custody in Maryland

By Monica Scherer

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 →