Kadish v. Kadish (2022) & Discovery Violations in Custody Disputes

The discovery process in child custody cases is not something which we have discussed extensively on our blog, but we will be increasing our discussion of this topic presently. The reason we will increase our focus on this topic is because discovery is a very significant part of litigation in general. Litigation has lots of parts, and oftentimes discovery – and the many rules which govern discovery – becomes overlooked in terms of its importance among all these various pieces.

‍

Whenever a party endeavors to litigate any matter, he or she needs to comply with all discovery requests to the best of his or her ability. This does not mean, of course, that a party needs to be overly conciliatory, or admit to things which are not within the scope of the discovery requests. Certainly, discretion with respect to admissions, document production, and general interrogatories is a matter of basic litigation strategy. But, ignoring requests altogether, or ignoring court orders to respond, is definitely not something which will ever place the respondent in a superior position.

‍

In the recent case of Kadish v. Kadish (2022), we can see an example of how discovery violations can affect certain outcomes in child custody cases. More specifically, we can see the types of consequences which a party may face when he or she willfully fails to comply with court orders relating to discovery violations. Let’s review this case so readers can better understand the full importance of discovery in these contexts.

‍

Facts of the Case

The parties in this case were married in 2014 and separated in 2018. In 2015, the parties had their only child between them. In 2019, a judgment of absolute divorce was entered, formally ending the marriage between the parties. The court integrated – but did not merge – a private agreement into the divorce judgment. The private agreement contained many terms, many of which related directly to how the parties would co-parent their only child. One of those terms, for instance, was that the parties would collaborate together through a parenting coordinator for the purpose of resolving minor disputes.

‍

The father alleged that the mother violated numerous terms of the agreement which had been integrated into the divorce judgment. The father petitioned the court for a modification of custody, and the basis of this petition was the mother’s post-judgment behavior related to co-parenting. The father sent discovery requests to the mother, and also attempted to conduct a deposition. The mother apparently ignored the father’s requests, and also failed to attend the deposition. The court took various actions to compel the mother to reply to the father’s discovery requests, although the court did not mandate the deposition. The court’s orders were also violated by the mother, and ultimately the trial court imposed a rebuttable presumption that granting the father’s modification petition was in the child’s best interests. The mother then appealed this particular finding.

‍

Outcome & Discussion

As the record shows, this case was procedurally complex, as the parties fought bitterly regarding the discovery violations, and the father attempted to procure his modified custody over the child. The father petitioned for sole legal and physical custody, and so much was at stake in this litigation.

‍

In its review, the appellate court noted that trial courts have wide discretion when it comes to imposing sanctions for discovery violations, including findings of contempt under certain conditions. However, in the context of child custody cases, the court’s authority is constrained by its overarching need to consider the best interests of the child. Hence, when the court is determining whether to exclude certain evidence altogether as a discovery sanction, the court must not be overly focused on punitive concerns, and instead must always consider the potential utility of the evidence in determining the child’s best interests.

‍

Here, the mother argued that the trial court had ignored its overarching concern when it developed its rebuttable presumption in favor of the father’s petition. The appellate division ultimately disagreed, and stated that this rebuttable presumption was appropriate given the fact that the mother could have presented evidence to rebut the presumption at any point. The trial court was acting in a manner consistent with its authority by developing this particular presumption.

‍

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

To learn more about the discovery process in child custody cases, potential consequences of discovery violations, the best interests of the child standard in Maryland law, or any other related family law matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-222-1187.

‍