.webp)
.png)
As we have tried to stress multiple times on our blog, the importance of following all procedural rules in family law cases can scarcely be exaggerated. Even if a party has plenty of viable evidence on his or her side, that party’s entire argument or case can be lost if a certain procedural rule isn’t followed.
We’ve also spent time discussing modifications to existing child custody orders, and the conditions which must be met before a modification may be even considered by a court. In the case of Speight v. Williams (2018), a mother ultimately ended up losing her modification case because she failed to follow the procedure with respect to modification. Let’s look at this case in more detail so we can more fully understand the necessity of following proper procedure in Maryland family law.
Factual Overview of the Speight v. Williams (2018)
The parents in this case lived in Prince George’s County. In 2016, the mother and father reached an agreement to share joint custody of their child. However, just several months after this agreement was reached, the mother was penalized by a court after a judge found that she was refusing to give the father his visitation with the child. The judge decided to give the father sole legal and physical custody, with the mother receiving daily contact via Skype or FaceTime.
This arrangement involving sole legal and physical custody of the child became the new established custody order. This meant that, to appeal this particular arrangement, the mother needed to bring the appeal within 30 days. After that period, the mother would need to seek modification of the order to alter it. The 30-day period expired, and then eventually several months later the mother attempted to bring a modification request. During the hearing on the request, the mother argued that the father had denied her attempts to have electronic visitation with their child. She also made other arguments regarding the viability of the original custody order (which granted sole legal and physical custody). The court ruled against the mother, and held that she had failed to demonstrate the “material change of circumstances” necessary to overcome the established order. The mother then appealed.
Ruling & Discussion
The appellate division affirmed the lower court’s holding. Although the mother may have had a viable case against the original order, she failed to bring that case within the correct timeframe. Because the timeframe to appeal the original order had already expired, she didn’t have the ability to confront that order. She had the ability to request a formal modification, but she then failed to make the correct arguments when she sought modification. Her arguments were directed toward the original order, and so the court was left with no logical choice other than to reject her request. In order to modify the order, she needed to show clear evidence that a material change of circumstances had occurred, and that this change required a modification. She failed to do this, and so ultimately her request was denied. Again, as mentioned, this all shows the importance of following procedure to the letter in Maryland family law. If the mother had followed procedure, there is a change she would’ve been able to change the original order and obtain something better than electronic visitation with her child.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you would like to learn more about child custody issues, procedural issues in family law, or another related matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
