Custody and Child Support

In Poulin v. Chowdhury (2018), a private custody agreement stipulated relocation based on drug test results. When the mother sought to relocate without meeting this condition, the court denied her request as per the agreement terms. This underscores the importance of adhering to agreement terms and following proper procedures for modifications.

Pentecost v. Pentecost (2017) illustrates how being a stay-at-home parent doesn't guarantee custody rights, as demonstrated by a case where the husband gained primary custody by citing the wife's infidelity and parenting shortcomings.

Child support in Maryland and Washington, D.C. is calculated using proportional income models, factoring in each parent's income, child care expenses, and custodial arrangements, with court approval required for deviations from standard guidelines.

In Fouth-Tchos v. Mahob (2018), the Maryland court system addressed a case involving parental relocation to another country, Germany. Despite the mother's intention to move with the children, the court limited her relocation to within the United States, altering the preexisting custody order. The mother attempted to modify the order to enable relocation to Europe but was unsuccessful. The court upheld the decision, emphasizing that modification requires a material change in circumstances, which the mother failed to demonstrate. Additionally, arguments regarding child support and financial hardship were deemed insufficient to justify relocation.

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

In the case of Pineda v. Honore (2017), a custody dispute arose between a couple who had a child during an unstable relationship. Despite the mother's request for a paternity test, the trial court awarded primary custody to the father, citing a lack of evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the affidavit of parentage.

The blog post emphasizes the critical importance of adhering to procedural rules in divorce proceedings, highlighting the potential ramifications of any lapses in compliance. It examines the case of Martin v. Meyer (2016), where an incorrect interpretation of the hearsay rule affected the outcome of a custody modification dispute. Despite the ex-wife's attempt to introduce hearsay evidence, claiming it was pertinent to the issue at hand, the trial court disallowed it. The appellate division upheld this decision, emphasizing the necessity for evidence to be directly relevant to the issues under consideration.

In the case of In Re: Adoption of Sean (2013), a biological father failed to file a timely objection to his child's adoption by his ex-partner's new husband. This led to the court granting the adoption, effectively terminating the biological father's parental rights. Despite appeals, the court upheld the decision, ruling that the father's failure to timely object constituted irrevocable consent to the adoption and did not violate his due process rights.

The blog post highlights a satisfied client's experience with the Murphy Law Firm, showcasing the firm's commitment to providing exceptional legal services in family law matters.

In the case of Karanikas v. Cartwright (2013), a father contested his ex-wife's relocation with their daughter to Pennsylvania. The father requested the judge to directly ask the child about her preference in court, but the judge declined, conducting a private interview instead. The father appealed, arguing that the judge mishandled the interview. However, the appellate division upheld the trial court's decision, stating that judges have discretion in considering a child's preference and other factors in custody cases, and the judge's actions were reasonable.

Reichert v. Hornbeck involved a custody battle between two lawyers who, despite a troubled marriage, both desired active involvement in their child's life. The trial court granted joint physical and legal custody but gave tie-breaking authority to the mother. The father appealed, arguing that this decision lacked evidence. However, the appellate division upheld the trial court's ruling, emphasizing the court's wide discretion in custody matters and the importance of evaluating each parent's expressed desire and actions regarding the child's well-being.

Custody disputes can involve scrutiny of a parent's criminal background, impacting their parental fitness. In Kalman v. Fuste (2012), the father sought emergency custody, citing the mother's criminal history. The trial court granted temporary jurisdiction to the father, but the appellate division overturned the decision. The appellate court clarified that specific conditions must be met for emergency jurisdiction, ruling that the father's arguments did not satisfy these conditions. The case was remanded for further consideration on jurisdiction.

Child support in Maryland is an essential obligation unaffected by private agreements between parents. In the case of Richardson v. Boozer (2012), a dispute arose over the cessation of payments when a child failed to graduate on time. The appellate court upheld standard rules, ordering continued support until the child turned 19, highlighting the immovability of child support

In the case of Guidash v. Tome (2013), the court ruled that child support cannot be bargained away in divorce agreements. Despite a separation agreement exempting the father from paying child support, the court upheld the mother's request for support, emphasizing that it's a fundamental obligation between parent and child. This underscores the court's authority to modify child support agreements, even if previously stipulated otherwise.