In C.M. v. J.M. (2023), a Maryland appellate court upheld a protective order restricting a father’s communication with his 13-year-old son, who was questioning his sexuality and gender identity. The father’s anti-LGBTQ+ statements and messages were found to have caused mental harm to the child. The father appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to justify the protective order. However, the appellate court ruled that electronic and verbal evidence, along with the child’s psychological distress, constituted a valid basis for the protective order.

Life estate interests provide present possessory rights to the holder while allowing the original owner to control future ownership. This structure is commonly used in estate planning to ensure that property ultimately passes to a designated beneficiary. The main advantages include limited ownership control and predetermined future distribution. However, the downsides include increased legal complexity and a trend against limited ownership structures due to their technical nature.

The Adelakun v. Adelakun (2024) case examined whether interlocutory orders denying pendente lite child support or alimony are appealable in Maryland. The court ruled that only interlocutory orders construed as “final judgments”—typically those that require payment—are appealable. Since the order in this case denied relief rather than imposing a payment obligation, it was deemed unappealable.

In E.N. v. T.R. (2019), a woman successfully obtained de facto parent status despite not being biologically related to the children she helped raise. The court ruled that only one biological parent's consent is needed to establish de facto parent status, provided specific criteria are met, such as living with the child and taking on parental responsibilities. The woman retained her status even after the mother’s appeal. Tags: