Custody and Child Support

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.

In Namasaka v. Bett (2018), despite the mother having primary custody, the court ruled that she must pay child support to the father due to a significant drop in his income. This case illustrates that in Maryland, a noncustodial parent can receive child support if there's a substantial income disparity favoring the custodial parent.

In Speight v. Williams (2018), a mother's failure to adhere to procedural rules resulted in the denial of her request to modify a child custody order. Despite potentially valid arguments against the original order, her inability to demonstrate a "material change of circumstances" and her failure to appeal within the designated timeframe led to the court's rejection of her modification request, underscoring the critical importance of following proper procedures in family law cases.

Avoiding legal obligations, such as child support, can lead to severe consequences, as seen in Greene v. Grant (2018). In this case, a professional basketball player accumulated over $100,000 in back child support, resulting in the court ordering him to pay $25,000 per month and threatening to revoke his passport, demonstrating the importance of addressing legal issues promptly.

The law can be unpredictable, as shown in Lappi v. Nenkam (2018), where a mother's procedural error during a child custody case was overlooked to prioritize the child's best interest, highlighting that legal outcomes can vary based on case type. Typically, procedural mistakes result in negative consequences, but in this instance, the principle of the child's welfare took precedence.

In Stoltz v. Clarke (2017), a mother's bid to present text messages as evidence in a custody dispute faltered due to procedural lapses, leading to their exclusion from the trial. Despite the content's potential significance, the failure to follow proper procedure resulted in each parent being awarded sole legal custody of one child. This case highlights the critical role of trial procedure in family law proceedings.

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.