Kalman v. Fuste (2012) & Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction in Custody Cases

Published on
February 9, 2024
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq
Category
Custody and Child Support

Custody disputes are serious matters, things which often bring up intense emotions from the parties involved. Courts carefully review a parent's personal history to decide if they are suitable for custody. Sometimes, court scrutiny involves looking into a person’s criminal background, because a criminal background can be relevant in the court’s analysis on parental fitness. Depending on the circumstances, a person’s criminal background may even be grounds for “emergency jurisdiction” when there is a question regarding jurisdiction.

Criminal history became an issue in the case of Kalman v. Fuste (2012), when a father tried to cite the mother’s criminal background as reason enough to grant temporary emergency jurisdiction. If a Maryland parent has to deal with an issue on jurisdiction, emergency jurisdiction may become relevant. Let’s dive into this case in detail.

Overview of the Case

The couple in this case were married in 1997. The couple resided in Maryland until the wife became pregnant; after becoming pregnant, the couple separated and the wife moved to Florida. The wife gave birth to a daughter in Florida, and then the couple formally divorced in 2008. The mother was granted primary physical custody of the daughter, but the father had substantial visitation and expressed a desire to play a strong role in his daughter’s life. After the divorce, the mother was arrested and charged with theft and drug trafficking charges; she also acquired a drug habit. The father filed an emergency motion in order to obtain full custody of his daughter. The father argued that the mother’s behavior rendered her unfit as a parent; he was also concerned that the mother might take the daughter back to Switzerland, her country of origin.

In order to grant temporary emergency custody to the father, the court needed to establish jurisdiction. The father argued that the circumstances in the case merited temporary emergency jurisdiction. The trial court agreed, and granted the father custody under this doctrine. However, the mother appealed, and the case went before the appellate division for review.

Outcome & Discussion

The father argued that the mother’s situation created “uncertainty” regarding the stability of her home and her fitness as a parent. The trial court accepted this argument in its ruling. However, upon review by the appellate division, the father’s argument was called into question. The appellate division laid out the conditions which must apply in order to grant temporary emergency jurisdiction. The court noted that the child must be in the State of Maryland, and that the child must either (1) be abandoned by the parent, or (2) in need of protection from mistreatment or abuse. Although the father contended that the mother’s circumstances produced “uncertainty,” that uncertainty still didn’t establish either of the two conditions which were necessary to grant temporary emergency jurisdiction. Consequently, after review, the appellate division overturned the trial court ruling and sent the case back to the trial court for a new decision on jurisdiction.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Resources

If you want to know more about custody issues, or other related issues, contact one of the top attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8963.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Jurisdiction, Custody, Divorce, Custody Disputes, Parental Fitness, Criminal Background, Emergency Jurisdiction, Kalman v. Fuste (2012), Maryland Law, Legal Proceedings, Trial Court, Appellate Division, Child Custody, Parental Rights, Legal Proceedings, Appellate Review, Maryland Law

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

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.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

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.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.