Published on:

By

In my November 16, 2010 blog I briefly mentioned the concept of voluntary impoverishment. Maryland law describes voluntary impoverishment as freely, or an act by choice, to reduce oneself to poverty or deprive oneself of resources with the intention of avoiding child support, John O. v. Jane O. 90 Md. App. 406 (1992). Our case law has further explained voluntary impoverishment as whenever an individual has made the free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond his or her control, to render himself or herself without adequate resources or income, Gordon v. Gordon, 174 Md. App. 583, 923 A.2d 149 (2007). Income is a factor in child support matters, divorce matters involving alimony, and a factor when deciding whether or not to award a party attorney’s fees.

In order to calculate child support in a Maryland child support case both parties’ incomes are needed. Maryland Code Family Law, § 12-201(h) defines income as (1) actual income of a parent, if the parent is employed to full capacity; or (2) potential income of a parent, if the parent is voluntarily impoverished. Before a Judge can impute a party a potential income for the purpose of calculating child support they must find that the party is in fact voluntarily impoverishing themselves. Oftentimes, establishing voluntary impoverishment is not a cut and dry as it may seem. To assist the Court in making a determination if a parent is voluntarily impoverished for purposes of calculating a child support obligation, several factors as to the parent are considered, including, but not limited to: (1) his or her current physical condition; (2) his or her respective level of education; (3) the timing of any change in employment or financial circumstances relative to the divorce proceedings; (4) the relationship of the parties prior to the divorce proceedings; (5) his or her efforts to find and 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. Gordon v. Gordon, 174 Md. App. 583, 923 A.2d 149 (2007); Stull v. Stull, 144 Md. App. 237, 797 A.2d 809 (2002).
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

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 →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

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 →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

On October 13, 2010 Consumer Reports.com reported that no-fault divorce has become available in all fifty states, with New York making no fault divorce part of their laws on October 12, 2010. A no-fault divorce is a divorce filing in which no fault based grounds need to be alleged, such as adultery or spousal abuse. As reported in our August 19, 2009 blog Maryland is a what is called a “hybrid state” in that a party filing for divorce may elect to proceed on fault (contested) or no-fault (uncontested) based grounds.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

It is not uncommon for clients involved in child support modification cases to ask if their news spouses’ income will be considered in the new child support calculation. For instance, Mr. and Mrs. Smith (first wife) were divorced in 2000 and at that time Mr. Smith was ordered to pay $300 per month in child support. Since that time, Mr. Smith has remarried to Mrs. Smith (second wife) and has also started a job making significantly more money, so Mrs. Smith (first wife) files a Complaint for modification of child support. Does Mrs. Smith’s (second wife) income count as part of Mr. Smith’s income for the purpose or recalculating the child support? The answer should be no. As Moore v. Tseronis, 106 Md. App. 275, 284-85, 664 A.2d 427, 431-32 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995) reports the court should not impute a new spouse’s income to the parent involved in the child support case when calculating child support. Further, the Annotated Code of Maryland, Family Law § 12-201(b) defines income as actual or potential income of a parent, not the parent’s new spouses income. This applies not only in modification cases, but also initial child support calculation cases. For basic information on child support calculations visit our September 9, 2009 blog.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

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 →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Effective October 1, 2010, in the State of Maryland a victim of domestic violence who has obtained a final protective order may terminate a residential lease without penalty. For more information on protective orders, see our August 16, 2009 blog. The tenant is given thirty days to leave the property, and will be responsible for the rent during the thirty day period. This legislation was introduced in an effort to aid victims of domestic violence if a change of housing is necessary. Further, this law creates a rebuttable presumption that the victim has not breached the lease agreement if the landlord attempts to evict the domestic violence victim as a result of the abuser’s behavior. If a tenant does not choose to leave the leased property, they may request that the landlord change the locks. In that event, the tenant will be responsible for the fee.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The Baltimore Sun reported on July 7, 2010 that retired Prince George’s Circuit Judge Graydon S. McKee III ordered Gayle and Craig Meyers to split custody of their dog at their limited divorce proceeding . For more information on limited divorce see our March 19, 2010 blog. In accordance with Maryland law, pets are considered marital property and are to be divided as such. For more information on marital property in Maryland, see Maryland Code, Family Law 8-203 and see August 19, 2009 blog. Instead of ordering the couple to sell the dog and split the proceeds, the Judge ordered that the dog will alternate spending six months with each party. As reported, “it was very clear that both of them love this dog equally,” McKee said. “The only fair thing to do was to give each one an equal chance to share in the love of the dog.”
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As stated in our June 30, 2010 blog on Facebook pages used as evidence in family law proceedings, Facebook pages and various other social networking sites such as MySpace are being used as evidence in many legal proceedings. As mentioned, the rules regarding the entry of these pages as evidence are still unclear. In a recent case published by the Court of Special Appeals, Antoine Levar Griffin v. State of Maryland, the Court offers attorneys some guidance on this exact evidentiary issue. The opinion, reported on May 27, 2010 states:

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.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

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 →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

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 →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As stated in our October 2, 2009 blog on alimony the Court may consider, among others, twelve different factors in deciding how much and for how long to award alimony. However, these factors provide very little guidance on how much alimony is appropriate based on income and financial figures. In Boemio v. Boemio, No. 57, September Term, 2009, the Court held that the courts are not limited to the twelve enumerated factors in the statue and that given the difficulty of translating those factors into a numerical award, courts may consult guidelines developed by a reasonable and neutral source. Such guidelines are fashioned similar to the Maryland Child Support guidelines and provide a numeric formula. The Circuit Court in this case consulted the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer’s guidelines but the Court of Appeals held that courts may also consult other guidelines such as the Women’s Law Center Kaufman Alimony Guidelines.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

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 →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The pending bill to update the Maryland Child Support Guidelines passed in the Maryland House of Representatives this past Saturday, March 27, 2010 with a vote of 114 in favor and 25 votes against. However, the House did make a few changes to the bill, which will have to be reviewed. The House changed the date the Guidelines would go into effect from October 1, 2010 to October 1, 2011. Also, the House revised the Guidelines to cap at a combined monthly income of $15,000.00 rather than $30,000.00. Currently, the Guidelines are capped at a combined monthly income of $10,000.00. Last, the House amended the bill to state that the new legislation would not qualify as a material change in circumstances for the purpose of requesting modification of child support.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information
Maryland Offices:
Downtown Baltimore Office
400 E Pratt St Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Office: (410) 385-2225 Toll Free: (800) 385-2243 Fax: (410) 547-2432 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Baltimore County Office
1 W Pennsylvania Ave #905
Towson, MD 21204
Phone: (410) 494-7100 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Washington, D.C. Office
By Appointment Only
1775 I St NW #1150
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 921-2225 Phone: (202) 539-2444
New York Office
By Appointment Only
40 Exchange Pl #1800
New York, NY 10005
Toll Free: (800) 385-2243
Annapolis Office
By Appointment Only
191 Main St #205
Annapolis, MD 21401
Office: (410) 385-2225
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Silverman | Thompson | Slutkin | White LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design