Maryland Divorce Lawyer Blog

Maryland has a diverse population that includes many people from foreign countries and transplants from other states. Problems can arise when child custody arrangements are determined in other countries or other states within the United States, but must be implemented in Maryland. There have also been problems when parents or family members look for more favorable custody decisions in another jurisdiction. In order to combat competition between states for control of custody issues, in 2004, the Maryland Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (MUCCJE) was enacted (replacing the Maryland Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.)

Under the MUCCJEA, a circuit court in Maryland has jurisdiction to hear a child custody complaint if Maryland is the home state of the child. Ordinarily Maryland honors child custody determinations made in foreign countries, but it is not required to do so if the child custody laws of the other country violate fundamental principles of human rights. Continue reading

Family law cases regarding child custody frequently turn on the best interests of the child. While parents have a Fourteenth Amendment right to raise their children without the State’s interference, this isn’t an absolute right. It must be balanced against society’s responsibility towards the child’s welfare.

In Maryland, when children are abused or neglected by their parents or have a disability that their parents are not able to attend to, social services may ask the juvenile court to designate them “children in need of assistance” or “CINA”. The court must make factual findings as to whether the allegations of social services are correct and determine a course of action to protect the child.

Continue reading

The Court of Special Appeals recently agreed to hear a child custody case and then dismissed the case for being moot. One justice dissented, noting that the case presented an issue that is likely to pop up repeatedly, but this issue will not be able to be reviewed in a timely fashion by the appellate court because of procedural timelines. Even though the dissent is not precedent that can be cited, it is important because it highlights a potential problem in child custody cases that the public needs to have resolved.

In the instant case, the court was asked to decide whether it is appropriate for a circuit court to pursue a termination of parental rights case when a child in need of assistance (CINA) order was issue, but was being appealed. A child in need of assistance is a child that needs intervention (1) because of abuse or neglect or a developmental disorder and (2) because his or her parents, guardian or custodian are not able to give proper care.

In this case, a baby boy was born prematurely. He had severe health problems, including prenatal exposure to HIV, which required him to stay at the hospital. The mother had been diagnosed and hospitalized for multiple psychiatric conditions and had used drugs and alcohol. When the baby was born, she was brought to a psychiatric unit. The baby’s father had a substance abuse problem and was convicted for more than once drug-related crime. Continue reading

In Guidash v. Tome, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ruled on whether a circuit court had erred in its factual findings in a child support case. The case arose from a couple’s 1991 marriage. The couple had two children. By 2001, the marriage was over and the couple entered into a separation and property settlement agreement. The separation agreement gave the parties joint legal and physical custody of the kids such that they lived 3 days with their father and 4 with their mother.

The agreement also permitted the mother to live in the marital home for 10 years, during which time the father was responsible for the mortgage, taxes and insurance. The father kept the kids on his medical insurance policy and paid half their medical expenses. The mother agreed to transfer her interest in the marital home to the husband for $25,000 and waived any interest in his pension for $20,000. The parties agreed there would be no child support because of the decisions made regarding the marital home. The agreement expressly provided a court could not modify this agreement.

Afterward, the husband filed a divorce complaint with the separation agreement attached as an exhibit. The court granted the divorce and incorporated the separation agreement into its judgment. From 2001-2011, the mother and the kids lived in the marital home. The husband abided by the terms of the agreement, paying the requisite sums. Continue reading

In a recent case, a Maryland appellate court looked at whether it retained jurisdiction over a custody dispute of a girl who lived all her life in Florida. The case arose from a marriage in 1997. The couple lived in Maryland until the woman became pregnant, at which point, the couple separated. The mother gave birth to her daughter in Florida in 2006. They divorced in 2008, agreeing that the mother would be the primary physical custodian, but the father would be allowed liberal visitation.

The mother raised her daughter in Florida with the help of her parents. In 2011, the mother was detained for shoplifting. The officers found a bottle of hydrocodone on her; it was labeled with a prescription for someone else. The mother was arrested for theft and drug trafficking.

The father decided to take the daughter to Maryland. He filed an emergency motion for custody, in which he stated his belief that the mother was using drugs and would probably take her daughter to Switzerland, where the mother was a citizen. The court granted him sole custody on a temporary basis. Continue reading