Custody and Child Support

This article explains third-party (non-parental) custody in Maryland and highlights the case of Augustin v. Duncan. Normally, a non-parent seeking custody must prove exceptional circumstances and show that the child’s parent is unfit. In this case, both biological parents died in an accident, leaving the child in temporary custody with non-parents. When the child’s aunt sought permanent custody, the temporary custodians argued she still had to meet the usual strict legal requirements. However, the appellate court ruled differently, stating that because both parents were deceased, the usual presumptions no longer applied. Instead, the court held that custody should be decided solely based on the best interests of the child. This case sets an important precedent by clarifying that traditional third-party custody standards apply only when at least one biological or adoptive parent is still living or holds custody.

In Maryland, courts may appoint “best interest attorneys” to protect children in custody disputes, but questions often arise regarding how the associated fees should be allocated between the parties. In Meyr v. Meyr (2010), the trial court required the father to pay all fees for both the best interest attorney and the mother’s attorney, but the appellate division ruled this was premature because the court had not fully considered both parties’ financial circumstances. While the father’s appeal was largely unsuccessful, the decision highlighted that a careful analysis of both parents’ finances is required before imposing attorney’s fees.

In In re T.K. (2022), the Maryland Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s custody award to a formerly non-custodial father because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing allowing the mother to present evidence on her capability to care for the child. The Court emphasized that all child custody and CINA determinations must adhere to the “best interests of the child” standard, which requires balanced consideration of all evidence. This case underscores the critical role of procedural fairness and the necessity of skilled legal advocacy in family law disputes.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) protects active military members, reservists, and National Guardspeople from default judgments in family law cases when their absence is due to military service. Under the SCRA, judges must provide appointed counsel, implement stays of up to 90 days, and allow servicemembers to reopen cases affected by absences caused by service. Additionally, the SCRA safeguards custody arrangements, preventing courts from modifying orders solely due to deployment and requiring temporary changes to revert once the deployment ends.

In Maryland, parents have a legal obligation to financially support their children until they finish high school or turn 19, whichever comes first. While parents are generally not required by law to pay for college, they can voluntarily assume this responsibility through private agreements, such as prenuptial, postnuptial, or marital settlement agreements. Once incorporated into a court order, these agreements become enforceable, and parents can structure them with conditions like tuition-only coverage or academic performance requirements.

In Adelakun v. Adelakun (2025), the Maryland Supreme Court emphasized the strict importance of procedural rules, holding that interlocutory orders denying payment (such as pendente lite child support or alimony) are not appealable. The court clarified that under CJ Section 12-303(3)(v), only orders directing the payment of money may be appealed, not those denying it. This case highlights how procedural technicalities can determine case outcomes and underscores the value of skilled legal counsel in navigating family law disputes.

Child support in Maryland and Washington, D.C. is calculated using a standardized “income shares model,” which considers both parents’ incomes and specific child-related expenses. While courts typically follow these fixed guidelines, they may deviate in rare cases or when combined parental income exceeds $30,000 per month. Additionally, child support orders can be modified if a parent demonstrates a substantial change in financial circumstances.

Maryland law imposes a strong financial responsibility on parents, including in cases involving children conceived through assisted reproductive technology. Sieglein v. Schmidt (2016) addressed whether a parent with no genetic connection to an IVF-conceived child could avoid child support obligations. The court held that intent and statutory interpretation controlled, confirming parental status and child support liability despite the absence of genetic ties.

Laches, a defense similar to a statute of limitations, has rarely been applied in Maryland family law and child support cases. Fludd v. Kirkwood (2021) examined whether laches could bar a delayed child support claim and whether Maryland courts had personal jurisdiction over a nonresident parent. The court held that laches did not apply under these facts, reaffirming that the best interests of the child generally outweigh delay-based defenses.

Maryland law permits parents to relocate with their children, provided specific legal requirements are met. Courts require a substantial purpose for the move and must find that the relocation serves the child’s best interests. When proper notice and procedural rules are followed, an approved relocation will not violate an existing custody order.

Maryland law recognizes a strong parental obligation to support children, but places strict limits on how child support orders may be modified. Pellet v. Pellet (2025) addressed whether a child support order could be retroactively modified to a date before a modification request was filed. The court reaffirmed a bright-line rule: while future modification is permitted upon a material change in circumstances, retroactive modification is not allowed under Maryland law.

Non-compliance with custody or support orders is a common and serious issue in Maryland family law. Courts address violations through post-judgment enforcement actions, including motions to enforce and contempt proceedings. When sufficient evidence of disobedience exists, Maryland judges have broad authority to impose penalties to compel compliance.

Child custody in Maryland is highly flexible and extends far beyond simple joint or sole custody classifications. Courts distinguish between legal custody, which governs decision-making authority, and physical custody, which determines parenting time and residence. Parents are encouraged to craft customized custody arrangements, subject to court approval under the best interests of the child standard.

De facto parenthood in Maryland allows certain third parties to assert full parental rights without proving parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances. McMorrow v. King (2025) addressed whether de facto parents may also be held responsible for child support obligations. The decision confirms that de facto parents are legally equivalent to natural parents, including potential liability for court-ordered child support.

In Sieglein v. Schmidt (2015), the Maryland Court addressed parentage and child support responsibilities in cases involving in vitro fertilization with anonymous donors. The court ruled that the husband was a legal parent despite lacking a genetic tie, based on his contractual and parental commitments. This case highlights how Maryland law adapts to modern reproductive technology and evolving family structures.