Child Support

Published on: July 15, 2023

2022 Updates to Maryland Child Support Laws

The Child Support Administration is required by law to review the Child Support Guidelines every 4 years to ensure that application of the Child Support Guidelines results in appropriate child support awards. The Child Support Administration must report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly. During the 2020 Legislative Session, the General Assembly passed changes to Maryland’s child support laws, some of which took effect on July 1, 2022. One year later, this post discusses the changes to Maryland’s child support laws and the impact of these developments.

Changes to the Child Support Guidelines

Effective July 1, 2022, the schedule of basic child support obligations increased for parents with a combined adjusted actual income greater than $19,200 per year. This change recognizes that the costs of raising children have increased.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 8, 2020

I’ve lost my job due to COVID-19 and can’t afford to pay child support

By Monica Scherer

Many parents have lost their jobs as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. With the closure of non-essential businesses and the government recommendation to stay at home, some parents are not able to find work. A court-ordered obligation to pay child support does not automatically stop because of a job loss, even if that job loss if through no fault of your own.

If you have lost your job and are unable to pay child support, we encourage you to communicate with your co-parent as soon as possible. Perhaps a written agreement or consent order can be worked out between the two of you to stay the child support payments until you are back to work. In Maryland, child support can be modified in certain circumstances, but with the courts only hearing certain types of emergency matters at the present time, a hearing on the modification will take longer than usual. However, it may still be worth filing with the court for a modification to attempt to protect yourself from the accumulation of child support arrearages while unemployed. In the meantime, the Maryland Judiciary has directed that you must continue to pay child support as ordered. The Maryland Judiciary has suggested that if you have questions or need help, whether you pay or receive child support, to call the Department of Human Services Call Center 1-800-322-6347. Maryland Courts Coronavirus Information

If you are experiencing a problem in paying or receiving child support during these challenging times, we encourage you to reach out to an experienced family attorney for guidance and assistance.

Published on: December 13, 2019

Do you have an above the guidelines child support matter? Another case to consider

By Monica Scherer

Maness remains precedent in above the guidelines cases.

Maness v. Sawyer, 108 Md. App. 295 (2008).

In Maness, the Court of Special Appeals, again, reviewed an above-the-guidelines case. The father’s monthly actual income was $7,833 and the mother’s monthly actual income was $8,333, totaling a combined monthly income of $16,166. This combined monthly income was beyond the $10,000 ceiling for the Maryland Child Support Guidelines at the time under Md. Family Law Code Ann. § 12-204(e), therefore, judicial discretion was used in the calculation of the child support obligation in accordance with Md. Family Law Code Ann. § 12-204(d). The trial court ordered the father to pay $1,203 per month in child support.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 2, 2019

Do you have an above the guidelines child support matter? Another case to consider

By Monica Scherer

Bagley remains precedent in “above-the-guidelines” cases

Bagley v. Bagley, 98 Md. App. 18 (1993)

In Bagley, the Court of Special Appeals was asked to review the findings and recommendations of a Domestic Relations Master which were adopted by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. This case, like Voishan and your current case, was an above-the-guidelines case as the father of the parties’ minor children recorded an annual income of over $507,360. The master made the recommendation that the father pay $2,722 in child support per month; this recommendation was subsequently adopted by the trial court.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 29, 2019

Do you have a child support matter that is above the guidelines? A case to consider

By Monica Scherer

Voishan remains precedent in “above-the-guidelines” cases.

Voishan v. Palma, 327 Md. 318 (1992).

In Voishan, the Court of Appeals addressed a mother’s Motion to Modify Child Support. The trial court granted the mother’s motion and ordered the father to double the amount of support he was paying for the parties’ only minor child. Evidence was presented in support of the motion for modification which revealed that the father was earning $145,000 per year and the mother was earning $30,000 per year. The combined adjusted actual income of the parties was therefore $175,000 a year or $14,583 per month. At the time, the Maryland Child Support Guidelines established through Md. Family Law Code Ann. § 12-204(e) only set guidelines for a combined adjusted actual income of $10,000 per month. In order to address cases, such as this, where the parties monthly income exceeded the guidelines, the legislature provided trial court’s with the discretion to set the amount of child support under Md. Family Law Code Ann. § 12-204(d).

Continue reading →

Published on: November 8, 2012

What happens now to the children of same-sex married couples when their parents’ divorce?

By Monica Scherer

Now that the same-sex marriage legislation has been approved by the voters of the State of Maryland, we thought it would be a good idea to re-visit the issues surrounding the children of same-sex couples. If you are a frequent reader of our blogs, you may recall on February 28, 2011 we wrote about the current legal status of those children of same-sex couples. The passage of the same-sex marriage legislation in Maryland does not change the legal status of those children. The passage of the current legislation will, however change the legal status of children adopted or born during the course of the marriage of a same-sex couple.

In the State of Maryland, “a child born or conceived during a marriage is presumed to be the legitimate child of both spouses” in accordance with Section 1-206 of the Estates and Trusts Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The Code further states that “a child conceived by artificial insemination of a married woman with the consent of her husband is the legitimate child of both of them for all purposes”. It is my belief that it would follow that that those children born or conceived during a same-sex marriage are the legitimate children of both parents, not only the spouse who gave birth to the child.
Continue reading →

Published on: September 12, 2011

For all those Father’s with Custody in the State of Maryland

By Monica Scherer

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 →

Published on: June 25, 2011

Am I Entitled to an Attorney in my Maryland Child Support Case?

By Monica Scherer

Most family law matters, such as divorce proceedings, and custody proceedings, do not involve the Maryland criminal system, or involve any imminent punishment such as jail time. However, when a non-paying child support obligor (parent who is supposed to be paying child support) is brought to court after the child support obligee (parent who is supposed to be receiving child support) files a Petition for Contempt, that obligor may be sentenced to jail time. Because this obligor faces jail time at this contempt proceeding, the proceeding, while civil in nature borderlines a criminal proceeding because of the punishment that can be imposed. While criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney have the option of obtaining a public defender, civil defendants in most cases do not. Therefore, it has often been a question whether these non paying child support obligors are entitled to an attorney due to the threat and/or possibility of incarceration?

On Monday, June 20, 2011 the Supreme Court of the United States issued an Opinion on this very question. As the New York Times reports, “The Supreme Court on Monday gave a complicated answer to the simple question of whether poor people facing jail time for failing to pay child support are entitled to court-appointed lawyers.” The Supreme Court case, Turner v. Rogers, involved in a man who had been sent to jail numerous times after civil contempt proceedings for his failure to pay child support. He was not represented by an attorney at these hearings. The Supreme Court ruled that there is not an automatic right to counsel in these civil contempt proceedings, however cautioned that if the opposing side (the obligee) has an attorney then it may be a different story. The Court cautioned that courts should warn those facing civil contempt that their non payment is a “critical issue.”

Many would argue that the Maryland courts are already meeting this standard by issuing a show cause order to those facing contempt prior to the hearing and in many counties affording those facing contempt a public defender. It has been my experience that the Judges in Maryland will not usually impose jail sentences to child support obligors at the first contempt proceedings and instead, will give them a set amount to pay (a purge amount)and/ or a new date to come back again and appear before the Judge. Many argue that jail time does not remedy the situation as those who owe child support cannot work while in jail. However, in cases of “repeat offenders” and high arrearages jail sentences may be and are imposed. Typically Judges will set a bail amount, that when it is paid will go directly to the child support that is owed.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 13, 2011

Maryland Protective Orders often Abused by Petitioners

By Monica Scherer

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 →

Published on: March 16, 2011

Modification of Maryland Child Support

By Monica Scherer

I recently defended a modification of child support case (the father was seeking a decrease) in the Circuit Court for Howard County and after a hearing the Court determined there was not a material change in circumstance to warrant a modification of the child support currently being paid to my client.

I believe the concept of a ‘material change in circumstance’ can often be misinterpreted to mean ANY change in circumstance, and that is not the case. In this particular situation the parties divorced late 2009, and child support and non-modifiable alimony were calculated and agreed upon. At the time of divorce, the parties agreed to leave the alimony payment outside of the child support calculation and agreed to a slightly higher amount of child support as they believed it was in the children’s best interest. Less than a year later, the father (ex-husband) filed to modify child support, seeking a lower amount, alleging that he changed jobs and was earning less (about 5% less), his ex-wife was earning a small income, and alimony should now be incorporated into the child support guideline worksheet.
Continue reading →