.webp)
In criminal law, there is a well-known concept of “double jeopardy,” which means that a person may not be tried for the same allegation more than once. This is one reason why prosecutors often have to drop charges when they have insufficient evidence against a person whom they strongly suspect is guilty. Even if their instinct or hunch tells them that the person committed the offense, they can end up ruining the prosecution if they bring their case before they have solid evidence. In family law, the same concept of double jeopardy may not exist, but there is a similar principle which holds that, in general, courts should not relitigate issues which have already been settled by a court in the past. This is particularly true when there is no change in circumstances between the bringing of the two cases.
In the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), this issue of relitigating a previously settled matter came up when a mother tried to modify a visitation order which was originally developed in a Puerto Rican court. Let’s explore this case in detail.
Overview of the Case
The mother and father in this case were never married, but together they had a daughter who was born in 2004. The daughter was born in Puerto Rico, and the couple and the daughter resided in that country until the early 2010s. In 2011, the couple experienced relationship issues, and ultimately they separated. Then, the mother attained sole custody via court order from a Puerto Rican court in 2011; the father obtained formal visitation rights in a separate order issued in 2013. The father’s visitation order was also issued by a Puerto Rican court. The mother relocated from Puerto Rico to Maryland, and in 2014 she began taking steps to register her order for sole custody in a Maryland court. To have a foreign custody order recognized, parents need to “register” that order, which essentially means filing an official notification with a Maryland court. In this context, “foreign” just simply means any court outside the territory of Maryland.
The court ended up registering the 2011 custody order for the mother. Subsequently, the father also attempted to have the 2014 visitation order registered. The father was successful in having his 2014 court order formally registered with Maryland. Then, in 2016, the mother brought a motion to modify the father’s visitation rights, and in her motion she alleged that the father had sexually abused their daughter. The trial court ruled against the mother on the basis that this issue involving alleged sexual abuse had already been litigated in a Puerto Rican court. The mother then appealed this ruling.
Outcome & Discussion
The appellate division upheld the trial court’s ruling, reiterating the same basic principle that the underlying matter had already been settled by the court in Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, the mother had already attempted to disrupt the father’s visitation rights, and she had attempted to rest this on the allegation of sexual abuse. However, experts had testified that this allegation of sexual abuse was unsubstantiated. So, when the mother brought her motion in a Maryland court to modify the father’s visitation rights, and she brought no new evidence to support her contentions, she was essentially trying to relitigate the same issue which had already been previously settled.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Resources
If you would like more information on the topic of visitation modification, or on another related family law matter, or you have a case which needs immediate attention, don’t hesitate to contact one of the top attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.
Image credit to PRSA-NY
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
