Maciejewski v. Sutton (2018) & the Potential Impact of Due Process on Custody

The principle of “due process” is one of the most critical concepts in our legal system. Before anyone can be denied his or her property rights, that person’s due process rights must be observed. This applies to cases involving child custody. The issue of due process in the context of child custody showed up in the (relatively) recent case of Maciejewski v. Sutton (2018). Let’s explore this case in a bit of detail.

An Overview of the Case

The couple in this case shared joint physical and legal custody for several months after divorcing. However, this custody was only temporary, and a three-day hearing was scheduled to determine how permanent custody would be arranged. The mother lived out-of-state and had difficulties attending the hearing because she was pregnant at the time; the mother’s lawyer informed the court regarding this situation, and an emergency request for postponement was placed with the court. A hearing on the request was held, and the judge ultimately agreed to postpone the hearing on permanent custody.

At the hearing on the postponement request, the judge also made temporary modifications to the existing custody order. The mother alleged that this modification violated her constitutional right to “due process,” because she was not given adequate notice regarding this particular issue. In other words, when the court ruled on the postponement request, the mother’s due process rights were not violated; but when the modification was made without any notice to the mother, the mother’s right to due process was supposedly violated. Ultimately, the mother challenged the modification portion of the judge’s ruling, and that modification was overturned. The mother’s contention that due process wasn’t observed was correct.

Key Lesson: Due Process Cannot Be Ignored

The simple lesson here is that the constitutional right to due process is not something which can be ignored; this is true even if a given ruling had been the same in the event that due process had been followed. In other words, merely because the same outcome would have occurred doesn’t mean that due process may be avoided. If, hypothetically, the father would have succeeded on a motion for modification doesn’t mean that he was allowed to skirt around the due process requirement. The mother was entitled to notice, consistent with her constitutional rights, and because that notice wasn’t properly observed the ruling on the modification couldn’t stand. In order for the modification to stand, the father would have needed to file a separate motion for modification and give the mother the proper notice.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you want to learn more about this topic, or have an unresolved issue, get in touch with the Murphy Law Firm and speak to one of our leading attorneys today by calling 240-219-8963.