Lappi v. Nenkam (2018) & Dealing with Past Litigation Mistakes

To say that the law can be tricky would be a pretty severe understatement. The law can be very tricky for all sorts of different reasons. One reason is because, in some contexts, the same step or behavior will produce a completely different outcome, something which is contrary to common expectations. Usually, when we take a particular step or action, we naturally expect that we will receive a consistent result or outcome. For instance, if a procedural step is violated or ignored in legal proceedings, typically the result is that the violator is punished in some way. In many cases, violating a procedural step can mean the end to a given case. At the least, we expect that a violation will lead to negative repercussions. Fascinatingly, that’s not always the case.

In some instances, the negative repercussions of violating a procedural step can be averted, depending on the particular type of case. When a case involving child custody, a procedural error won’t necessarily have a determinative impact on the outcome. This fact was shown recently in the case of Lappi v. Nenkam (2018). Let’s look at the facts of this case in more detail.

Facts of the Case

The mother in this case was a Cameroonian immigrant. The mother and father ultimately settled in Montgomery County. During the divorce, a custody battle ensued, and the father ended up seeking primary custody. Just as in other types of cases, child custody cases have a “discovery phase” in which documents and other evidence are produced. In the discovery phase of this case, the mother made a procedural mistake, and the judge initially reacted by imposing restrictions on what the mother was allowed to present on her side during the custody hearings.

At the time the custody battle began, the child was already primarily living with the mother, and there was no evidence that either parent was unfit. Although the mother acknowledged the procedural mistake, she argued that she should be allowed to present more evidence during custody hearings for the sake of the child’s best interest. The judge was then left with a decision whether the mother’s procedural mistake should be overlooked for the “best interest of the child” principle.

Ruling & Discussion

Ultimately, the trial judge reconsidered the matter and determined that the mother should be allowed to present more evidence during her hearings on custody. The judge was convinced that the principle of the “best interest of the child” necessitated this outcome. Again, this is a good example of how the law can be counter-intuitive and even self-contradictory in certain instances. Typically, as mentioned, a procedural mistake will necessarily lead to negative consequences, even if it is relatively minor. In this situation, although the mother did make a mistake during the discovery phase, she avoided any real negative consequences of the nature of her case. Because this case involved child custody, the principle of the best interest of the child demanded that the procedural mistake go essentially unpunished. Readers should note that this sort of outcome isn’t common. Procedural mistakes are rarely unpunished, and so litigants in Maryland should take care to follow these procedural rules whenever possible.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you want more information about complex litigation, litigation issues, family law issues, or other related matters, reach out to one of the family law lawyers at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.