Custody and Child Support

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.

In custody disputes, the paramount consideration is the "best interests" of the children, often overseen by appointed attorneys tasked with safeguarding these interests. The case of Myer v. Myer exemplifies this, where a "best interest" attorney played a crucial role. Despite complex allegations against the mother, the attorney's observations and recommendations provided invaluable insights, guiding the court's decision towards joint legal custody and therapy for the children. This case underscores the vital role that such attorneys play in ensuring the welfare of children in custody proceedings.

In Maryland family law, the contentious issue of third-party visitation rights, often sought by grandparents, is complex and challenging. Examining the case of In re: Victoria C. (2013), where a half-sister sought visitation with her younger half-siblings, sheds light on this issue. Despite initial success in the trial court, the appellate courts overturned the decision, emphasizing the need for "exceptional circumstances" to override parental objections. The Supreme Court of Maryland upheld this ruling, highlighting the importance of parental rights and the burden on non-parents to demonstrate compelling reasons for visitation.

The case of Laznovsky v. Laznovsky (2000) highlights the contentious issue of the discoverability of psychotherapist-patient communication in custody battles. Despite the mother's argument for maintaining privilege over her mental health records, the trial court ruled in her favor, granting sole legal custody. This case underscores the ongoing debate surrounding the privacy of such communications in legal proceedings.

Child custody disputes pose significant challenges in family law, causing suffering when parents fail to reach an agreement. Examining the case of In re: Andre J. (2014), it highlights a scenario where a child, due to maternal neglect, was placed in foster care with a reunification plan. As the plan proved unattainable, a court-ordered APPLA (another planned permanent living arrangement) was granted, emphasizing the critical role of effective legal representation in custody cases.

In the case of Placella v. Placella (2016), the father made a last-minute emergency request for continuance, because of illness and the sudden dismissal of his counsel, and that request was initially denied. In the end, however, he succeeded in obtaining his continuance. How did this happen? Let’s take a closer look at this importance case.

In the case of Maciejewski v. Sutton (2018), a mother challenged a custody modification, alleging a violation of her constitutional right to due process. The court upheld that due process cannot be ignored, emphasizing that even if the outcome might have been the same, proper notice was necessary. The modification was overturned, highlighting the significance of observing due process rights in child custody cases.

In the case of K.M. v. C.D. (2017), a custody dispute saw a procedural error at the trial court level where inadmissible hearsay evidence was allowed. Despite acknowledging the error, the appellate judge upheld the trial court decision, emphasizing that the error had no substantial impact on the ruling and followed the appropriate standard of review in family law cases. The mother won the appellate court's decision despite the acknowledged procedural error at the trial court level.

In the case of Boone v. Youngbar (2016), the Maryland court faced a paternity dispute where a couple, despite signing an "affidavit of parentage" and sharing custody, had uncertainties about parentage. The mother later alleged a different biological father, but the court, emphasizing the significance of the affidavit, denied her request for a new DNA paternity test. The court held that the boyfriend's consistent acknowledgment and involvement with the child, along with the absence of fraud or duress, upheld his parentage status.

The case of David A., et al. v. Karen S. (2019) in Maryland family law establishes a precedent where a non-biological "de facto" parent, specifically the maternal grandmother, was granted full legal and primary physical custody of a child deemed unfit for the biological parents. Notably, the court also awarded the de facto parent attorney fees, totaling $57,000, signaling a significant development. This case clarifies that non-biological parents can be eligible for attorney fee awards, contingent on the court's official recognition of their "de facto" status, thereby equalizing their standing with biological parents in pursuing such fees.

In the Rosemann v. Salsbury Clements (2010) case, the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed whether funds from a personal injury settlement could be used to satisfy back child support payments. Despite the husband's attempt to attach the settlement funds, the court ruled that personal injury settlement income is not eligible for garnishment under the relevant statute. This decision underscores the legal protection of certain types of income in child support cases, illustrating the complexity of enforcing such obligations.