Entries (RSS)
It is well settled in Maryland Law that there is a strong presumption that child custody will generally be awarded to a natural parent over a third party. The following Maryland Court of Special Appeals case illustrates that there are exceptions to this "rule" and the case serves as a good reference to understanding the legal issues and standards that were applied and factual determinations made in this particular case. Karen P. v. Christopher J.B., 163 Md. App. 250, 878 A.2d 646 (2005)
The case of Karen P. v. Christopher J.B., 163 Md. App. 250, 878 A.2d 646 (2005) was summarized in the January/February publication of the MSBA’s Solo and Small Firm Practice Section. The article about this case was written by: Michael Chomel, Esquire and is reprinted here in its entirety.
Facts: Karen P. and Christopher B. met and became romantically involved in 1992 and that same year moved into a single household. In 1996 Karen gave birth to Sebastian. The parties relationship then began to deteriorate, and Christopher moved out in early 1999. He continued to visit Sebastian during the separation. After several months, the parties reconciled their differences, and Christopher moved back into the family home.
In December of 1999, Karen gave birth to Claudia. According to Karen, when she read the date of conception on a sonogram report, she knew that Christopher was not the baby’s biological father, but instead of telling that man, she ended the relationship with him. During the pregnancy, Karen acted as if Christopher were the baby’s biological father; having no reason to think otherwise, Christopher thought he was the biological father. Within 24 hours of Claudia’s birth, Karen identified Christopher as Claudia’s Father on an affidavit of parentage and on Claudia’s birth certificate.
Karen, Christopher, Sebastian, and Claudia lived together and functioned as a family. Sebastian and Claudia bonded as siblings, and Claudia and Christopher bonded as father and child. To Claudia, Christopher is her father.
Once again, the parties’ relationship began to deteriorate. Christopher left the family home for a few months during the summer of 2003, and visited the children during the separation. In September, after Christopher had moved back into the family home at Karen’s suggestion, Karen filed a complaint seeking custody of Sebastian and Claudia in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. She alleged that she and Christopher were the children’s parents. In February of 2004 Christopher filed a counter complaint seeking custody of the children.
In April, after a heated argument, Karen told Christopher that he was not Claudia’s biological father. For that reason, Karen thought a court would grant her custody of both children — to keep them together.
In May, Karen brought a moving van to the family home and removed the furniture and household items. She then picked the children up from school and moved to Avalon, New Jersey. She did not tell Christopher about the move; he found out as Karen was removing items from the home. Karen would not tell him where she was moving or where the children were.
For three months after the move, Karen would not disclose to Christopher her location. She allowed him to speak to the children by phone, but monitored the calls to make sure the children did not discuss their whereabouts. She offered to bring the children to Baltimore for visits, but only if she supervised the visitation. Christopher refused these offers. Karen conceded at trial that she did not move to Avalon for any particular reason other than she thought it was a nice town. She had no family connections there.
In July, Karen filed a request for DNA testing to determine Claudia’s paternity, which the court granted. Karen told Claudia the testing was part of a routine doctor’s visit. Two days before trial, the DNA results showed that Christopher could be excluded as Claudia’s father. As of the time of argument to this Court, Claudia had not been told that Christopher was not her biological father.
Testimony and evidence at trial revealed that Sebastian and Claudia were doing well in school in Avalon. Karen had signed a long-term lease on the house that she and the children had moved into when they first went to Avalon in May of 2004. The house has three bedrooms and plenty of room for the children. On this evidence, the court found that both Christopher and Karen were fit parents, but that exceptional circumstances rebutted the presumption that it would be in Claudia’s best interests to be in the custody of Karen, her biological parent.
The exceptional circumstances were the strength of the relationship between Claudia and Christopher; Christopher’s intense and genuine desire to have custody of Claudia, even though she was not his biological child; the lack of stability and uncertainty of Claudia’s future if she were to be in Karen’s custody, evidenced by Karen putting her own interests above the children’s by moving them to New Jersey; and that Claudia’s paternity had only been challenged when Karen was "getting a leg up" on trying to seek sole custody in the case.
Accordingly, the court found that it would be in the children’s best interests to be in Christopher’s custody, with visitation for Karen. The court issued an order memorializing its decision, and Karen appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.
Held: Affirmed. The Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court’s finding of exceptional circumstances was supported by sufficient evidence and was not clearly erroneous; therefore, the trial court’s decision to award custody of the children was not clearly erroneous; therefore, the trial court’s decision to award custody of the children to Christopher was not an abuse of discretion.
The Court observed that a child’s best interests ordinarily will be served by custody in the biological parent. The presumption can be rebutted however, if the third party seeking custody shows either a lack of fitness on the part of the biological parent detrimental to the child’s best interests. The Court further noted that the non-exhaustive list of exceptional circumstances developed in case law includes: the nature and strength of the ties between the child and the third-party custodian; the intensity and genuineness of the parent’s desire to have the child; the stability and certainty of the child’s future in the custody of the parent; and the possible emotional effect of the child of a change in custody.
The Court found Karen’s first argument — that the trial court should have discounted the psychological father/daughter relationship between Claudia and Christopher because Claudia also had a strong mother/daughter relationship with Karen — to be without merit. It concluded that, in Maryland cases involving custody disputes between a biological parent and a third party, the closeness and relationship between the child and the non-biological parent was of "considerable importance" on the issue of whether exceptional circumstances existed to make an award of custody in the biological parent detrimental to the child’s interests.
The Court also found that the trial court did not err in considering Christopher’s intense and genuine desire to have custody of Claudia in making its exceptional circumstances finding. The Court first noted that the factors to consider are not exhaustive. Furthermore, the Court explained that the genuineness of Christopher’s desire to have custody of Claudia was relevant because Karen had put her own interests above those of the children, both by interjecting the issue of paternity into the case and by failing to disclose the identity of Claudia’s biological father. Accordingly, the Court reasoned, whether Christopher was seeking custody as a responsive litigation strategy, or because of his genuine desire for custody, was part of the complete picture of the case.
The Court also found without merit Karen’s argument that the trial court committed clear error in disregarding evidence that she had made a stable home for Claudia in New Jersey. The Court concluded that the trial judge’s analysis of stability vel non was not limited to material advantages. Rather, it also encompassed the certainty that Claudia would maintain family relationships in the future; the fact that Karen had put her best interests over those of the children when she moved to New Jersey; and the fact that Karen gave no thought to the effect the move would have on the children’s relationship with Christopher or other relatives in his family.
