Custody case law

Maryland Appeals Court Rules No Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction in a Child Custody Case

May 8, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

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

Maryland Court Did Not Rule Improperly in Granting Joint Custody to Fighting Parents

April 10, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In March 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the divorce and child custody case of Reichert v. Hornbeck that illustrated the broad leeway courts have in making child custody determinations. The case arose out of the rocky romantic relationship that ensued when Jeffrey, a recent law school graduate, met Sarah, who was preparing to go to law school. The couple broke up after three years. They reunited in 2008 and got engaged. By then, Jeffrey had moved up the corporate legal ladder. Sarah had also succeeded professionally, earning about $120,000 a year at a firm. However, she later left her firm for a new job that paid only $68,340 a year.

Jeffrey and Sarah moved into a three-story rental in Baltimore and got married. During their honeymoon however, they experienced the same kind of conflict they had in the earlier incarnation of their relationship. These issues continued through the rest of their marriage. Continue reading

Maryland Court Affirms Constitutionality of Rules Regarding Natural Parent’s Objections

April 3, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Maryland Court of Appeal recently considered constitutional questions in the context of the independent adoption process in In Re: Adoption of Sean. Moira M. and William H. dated from April 2008 to November 2008. On June 16, 2009, Moira M. gave birth to a baby, Sean. The next month Moira filed a complaint against William H. Stating that he was the natural father of Sean, Moira’s complaint sought sole custody.

In his answer, William H. denied that he was the natural father. He set forth no objection to Moira M. having sole custody. Meanwhile, Moira M. married Jeffrey Craig K., a man she had been dating, during the fall of 2009. The suit was dismissed in 2010 by agreement.

In March 2011, Jeffrey Craig K. filed a Petition for Stepparent Adoption of a Minor and Change of Name. He announced that he planned to continue to live with Sean’s mother. He also said the natural father had not been identified nor come forward. The Petition claimed that even if William H. was Sean’s natural father, he had “abandoned his parental rights” by denying Sean was his son in the answer to Moira’s earlier complaint, not participating as Sean’s father, and not attempting to support Sean.

Case Summary: Sole Legal Physical Custody Awarded to Dad

March 21, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Recently, our office assisted a Dad who wanted to obtain sole residential and sole legal custody of his two young children. He was a young father, only 21 years old, but he had already demonstrated a level a maturity of someone much older. He had been taking care of the children for about a year with little to no support or even contact from the children’s mother.

The Dad, acting on his own without the assistance of an attorney, filed for custody with the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, MD. When he filed for custody, he never anticipated that the children’s mother would fight him. However, that is exactly what happened. After being served, the children’s mother hired an attorney, who immediately opposed the Dad’s request for sole custody and filed for joint custody on the mother’s behalf.

By the time the Dad had saved a little money to hire an attorney and had sought assistance from our experienced family law attorneys, the custody merits trial was less than one week away. The Dad came to our office petrified and nervous that he was going to lose custody of his children. He believed that the Court would favor the mother solely because she was the mother and she would automatically get joint custody even if that wasn’t in the best interest of the children.

Maryland Court Rules On Judge’s Interview of a Child During Custody Battle

March 14, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently ruled that a trial judge did not abuse his discretion when questioning a child about custody arrangements in Karanikas v. Cartwright. Rachel Karanikas Cartwright (“the mother”) and Konstantinos Karanikas (“the father”) were originally awarded joint legal custody of their nine-year-old daughter, which later changed to physical custody by the mother with visitation by the father.

In March 2012, the mother emailed the father stating her intent to relocate to Pennsylvania with their child. The father did not consent. Both parents filed pleadings to change the original order and judgment. The relocation trial was set for September 7, 2012.

The father sought to have the child testify either in open court or in chambers. Initially the trial judge reserved on the question of whether or not to interview the child because other witnesses might be able to provide information pertinent to the issues such that a nine-year-old would not need to testify. However, the trial judge did meet with the child in chambers for about twelve minutes at the end of the trial’s first day. Continue reading