Custody and Child Support

Discovery is a crucial yet sometimes overlooked part of family law litigation, especially in child custody disputes. Proper compliance with discovery requests—such as producing documents, answering interrogatories, and attending depositions—is essential. Ignoring these obligations can seriously impact the outcome of a case.

Relocation by a parent often impacts child custody arrangements in Maryland, requiring formal court review to ensure the move serves the child’s best interests. Parents must usually give at least 90 days’ notice, though notice requirements can be customized by judges or agreed privately. Whether custodial or noncustodial, a relocating parent must seek approval if the move materially affects compliance with the existing custody order.

In Maryland, child support is a fundamental obligation and typically continues until a child turns 19 or finishes high school, based on standard guidelines rather than customized terms. Parents aren’t legally required to cover extracurricular or college expenses unless they agree to do so in a private contract. Such private agreements can be formalized into enforceable court orders, extending financial obligations beyond high school.

In Maryland, both parents are financially responsible for their children, and noncustodial parents typically pay child support based on state formulas tied to income. To modify child support, parents must prove a material change in circumstances through the court, rather than private agreement. Courts may also impute income if they find a parent is intentionally underemployed to avoid paying support.

The case of B.O. v. S.O. (2021) illustrates Maryland’s strict standard for de facto parenthood, requiring proof that both natural parents affirmatively consented to a parental-like relationship. In this case, an aunt’s claim failed because she couldn’t show both parents gave consent. As a result, the trial court and appellate court rejected her petition without needing to analyze the child’s best interests.

In Francis v. Francis (2024), the Maryland appellate court reaffirmed that veteran’s disability income is considered "actual income" under Maryland’s child support guidelines. Following a divorce, the father sought a modification to reduce his child support obligation, arguing that his veteran’s benefits shouldn't count as income.

Attorney’s fees are often a contentious issue in family law disputes, especially in protracted custody battles. The recent Maryland case George v. Bimbra (2025) highlights the complexities courts face when deciding whether to shift attorney’s fees from one party to another under a “good cause” analysis. In this case, the mother and father engaged in a lengthy custody dispute, with shifting goals and numerous court actions.

This blog explores the In re J.R. (2020) case, where a Maryland court affirmed CINA status based solely on neglect, without evidence of physical abuse. The decision emphasizes that unsafe living conditions, parental history, and drug use can all justify state intervention. CINA proceedings, though sensitive, aim to safeguard children’s health and future development.

In Alexander v. Alexander (2021), the court ruled that a mother’s decision to deny the father parenting time during the COVID-19 pandemic was in the child’s best interests due to health concerns. Despite the father's request for “make up parenting time,” the court determined that the lost time should not be compensated, setting a precedent for deferring to parents' decisions made for the child’s safety.

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.

This blog reviews the case of Zahn v. Zahn and complex child support issues for children with special needs in Maryland.

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:

In Burleigh v. Burleigh (2019), child support was recalculated after the father, initially earning much less in a new job outside his field, secured a higher-paying job in his original profession as a financial advisor. The court determined that recalculating child support based on his new, higher income was appropriate, considering his potential for voluntary underemployment had he stayed in the lower-paying job.

In the case of Katzper v. Brody (2019), the issue of child support modification arose when a child moved out of the custodial parent's home before turning 18, but the modification request was not heard until after the child reached 18. The appellate court ruled that the timing of the modification request filing, not the child's age at the hearing, determines eligibility.

In David A. v. Karen S. (2018), the Maryland appellate division clarified that de facto parents, who perform essential parental functions for a child, are entitled to rights and privileges similar to natural or adoptive parents under Maryland law. This includes the right to seek attorney’s fees in legal proceedings related to custody and parental rights.