.webp)
.png)
When it comes to matters of child custody, one thing that laypeople need to understand clearly is that participation at every step of the process is critical to a desirable outcome. In point of fact, this is also true when it comes to every other part of the divorce procedure. If you fail to appear at a court hearing, for instance, you run the risk of significantly damaging your chances of achieving an optimal outcome. This is simply the nature of the court system. No matter what else happens in a given case, failing to show up at a court hearing can only negatively impact your situation; there is no circumstance under which failure to participate will constitute a positive thing.
In the case of Carrington v. Richards (2017), a mother’s failure to participate in a custody hearing ultimately contributed to her losing custody of her son. The case of Carrington v. Richards is a complex one, and a case which had a very tragic conclusion. Let’s examine this case in detail.
Overview of Carrington v. Richards (2017)
The custody battle in this case was a long and bitter one. The father and mother had a son, and both the father and mother desired full custody after separating. In 2013, the father filed a formal action to attain full custody of their son; at that time, both the father and the mother had established residency in the State of Maryland. When the father filed that action in late 2013, he was under the impression that the son lived with the mother in Maryland. However, after the father filed his custody motion, the son’s maternal grandmother filed a motion which sought guardianship over the boy. Eventually, the father’s attempt to gain custody went before a trial court judge in late 2014. At the final hearing, the mother was completely absent, and the judge awarded the father sole custody. Three months after the final hearing, the father had to return to court because the mother refused to turn over their son.
The mother subsequently made a separate attempt to overturn the trial court judge’s decision on the basis that she currently lived in Alabama and the father allegedly had relocated to New York (which the father claimed was untrue).
Outcome & Discussion
At the separate trial court hearing initiated by the mother, the mother argued that, because the son had always lived with her, this living arrangement created a strong basis to grant her custody. The trial court judge rejected that argument, and noted that part of the reason why the son had continuously lived with her was because she blatantly disobeyed the court’s order to transfer custody. The judge also noted that, if the mother had participated in the Maryland court case, she may have been able to obtain custody in a legitimate fashion, and that her efforts after that case only served to harm her interests in the long run. Given that the mother failed to participate in the Maryland court case, this created a difficult hurdle to overcome at a future point, because now the mother had to show that a material change in circumstances necessitated a change in custody status. Given that the mother was unable to cite any such change in circumstances, there was no way for the court to award her custody.
Ultimately, because the mother still refused to turn over physical custody of the child, the father made a trip to Alabama to seek out his son. The mother ended up shooting the father and wounding him. Although the father survived and didn’t suffer any serious injuries, this case shows how powerful custody cases can be, and the type of effect they can have on the psyches of the people involved.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you want more information on alimony modification, or another related topic, or if you have a current case which needs attention, reach out to the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
