After Born Children Affecting Child-support in Divorce in Maryland

There are circumstances where a parent has a child from a previous relationship that they are court ordered to pay child support and they have a new child from a different relationship and once again they are the called upon to pay child support. In Maryland the gross income for determining child support will be reduced in calculating the child support needs of the after born child by the amount of pre-existing reasonable child support obligation actually paid for the first child. This is true even if there is no court order for child support affecting the firstborn child. However it will be necessary to produce proof that you are paying child support for the firstborn child by receipts and proof of payment. If you have questions regarding Maryland child-support or divorce in Maryland please feel free to give me a call and I'm happy to answer your questions for you right over the phone at no cost to you. 1-888-760-7339

The Anatomy of A Divorce in Maryland

The anatomy of the Maryland in divorce is affected by the number of issues your Maryland divorce case presents, what issues are presented, and the location of the divorce. For example, if you have children and custody is an issue, that affects the anatomy. If your case is being tried in Anne Arundel County verses lets say Harford County, that affects the anatomy. However, having said that I will out line the general course of events taking what I see as the mean between all jurisdictions and accepting all issues are being addressed in the Maryland divorce.

1. Initial pleadings, Information Sheet, Financial Statement and filing fee are filed with the court. The Initial pleading (complaint) will be outlining your grounds and prayer for relief.
2. The Court issues a summons and returns the pleading back to you for service.
3. You locate and serve your spouse (or you can pay and let the sheriff serve your spouse) with the pleading.
4. Depending upon where your spouse is served (in state/out of state) they have 30 days to file an answer.
5. Once all pleadings are received (assumes your spouse filed an answer, if they did not you proceed to file for default, which is another procedure) in the court (complaint and answer) you will receive a notice to attend a scheduling conference. This conference is generally 60-90 days after your spouse files the answer.
6. Generally, after your spouse files the answer you issue discovery to your spouse. These are questions to your spouse to determine income information, witness information, assets and debt information and information on grounds. Also, you will request documents. Also you can request by filing motions for such things as emergency relief, medical examinations, custody evaluations, and appointment of counsel for children.
7. At the Scheduling Conference you will be ordered to parenting classes and mediation for custody and visitation issues. You will also receive deadline dates to complete discovery and identify experts. If requested you will receive a date for a pendete lite hearing (PL hearing) on all temporary issues. This would include, custody, visitation, child support, use and possession, contribution, alimony and counsel fees. Normally, that hearing is about 90 days away. If your spouse is not paying child support, depending upon the jurisdiction and the master you are in front of for the scheduling conference, you will walk out of the scheduling conference with a child support order. A rare event but it does depend upon which county and what master you have that day.
8. Pending the preparation for the PL hearing, for the next 180 days or so you will work on discovery issues, complete parenting classes, attend mediation, and ultimately receive a schedule for the Settlement Conference.
9. You attend the Settlement Conference, generally, with all discovery issues completed, if the case settles you are done. If the case does not settle you receive your trial date. Again, depending upon the jurisdiction, that will be anywhere from 90 to 180 days. In Montgomery County this is normally, 9 months away.
10. Once you receive your trial date, immediately issue trial subpoenas for witnesses.
11. Trial Date. You win you are done. If you do not win you have post trial motions you can file.
12. Post trial Motions: https://www.facebook.com/KeithBlairBartnikPA?ref=hl

Child Custody in Maryland

Maryland Child Custody Law revolves around the simple concept of what is in the child's best interest. Custody happens on two different levels, which are themselves further broken down into two levels. You have Legal Custody, further broken into sole and joint, and you have Physical Custody, further broken into sole and shared. It is interesting to note that the Court in Maryland can not enter an order for pendente lite custody when the parties continue to reside together. See Maryland Family Law Article 5-203. Legal Custody: Sole Legal Custody and Joint Legal Custody. Sole Legal Custody is where only the custodial parent has the right to make the decisions affecting health, education and welfare. Joint Legal Custody is where both parents share equally in decision affecting the health, education and welfare of the minor child. Physical Custody is more interesting then legal Custody. Physical Custody is where the child lives. Physical Custody is also broken down into two different categories. You have either Sole Physical Custody or Shared Physical Custody. Once a non custodial parent enjoys Shared Physical Custody it means two things (1) he/she has the child with them in excess of 128 over nights per year and (2) the child support obligation is affected by the overnights with the otherwise non custodial parent. You will find many people fight over the 128 overnights. In order for a non custodial parent to reach the 128 number they must establish it is in the child's best interest. The court looks at the factors in a case call Taylor v Taylor to help the judge make the difficult decisions on whether to order sole joint custody or shared physical custody.

the Taylor v Taylor - Factors for Shared Physical see Sanders for Court factors on sole physical custody

Maryland Courts follow the factors outlined in this case to determine joint legal and shared physical custody

Capacity of the Parents to Communicate and to Reach Shared Decisions Affecting the Child's Welfare. This is clearly the most important factor in the determination of whether an award of joint legal custody is appropriate, and is relevant as well to a consideration of shared physical custody. Rarely, if ever, should joint legal custody be awarded in the absence of a record of mature conduct on the part of the parents evidencing an ability to effectively communicate with each other concerning the best interest of the child, and then only when it is possible to make a finding of a strong potential for such conduct in the future.

With few exceptions, courts and commentators agree that joint custody is a viable option only for parents who are able and willing to cooperate with one another in making decisions for their child.

When the evidence discloses severely embittered parents and a relationship marked by dispute, acrimony, and a failure of rational communication, there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by conditioning the making of decisions affecting the child's welfare upon the mutual agreement of the parties. Even in the absence of bitterness or inability to communicate, if the evidence discloses the parents do not share parenting values, and each insists on adhering to irreconcilable theories of child-rearing, joint legal custody is not appropriate. The parents need not agree on every aspect of parenting, but their views should not be so widely divergent or so inflexibly maintained as to forecast the probability of continuing disagreement on important matters. The Courts will examine the sense of respect for one another as parents, despite the disappointment in each other as marriage partners. The fact that each can appreciated the value of the other to the child, and is sensitive to the possible loss of a parent-child relationship. There must be a demonstrated capacity to tolerate the minor differences that existed and to distinguish the important from the unimportant ones. The parents should be able to relinquish control and not interfere in the other parent's relationship with the child. They should each be personally flexible and able to accommodate to the needs of the arrangement, the child, and even to the other parent. It was important that each parent had a sense of self-esteem as a parent in his or her own right in order to maintain the balance in the co-parental relationship.

Ordinarily the best evidence of compatibility with this criterion will be the past conduct or “track record” of the parties. We recognize, however, that the tensions of separation and litigation will sometimes produce bitterness and lack of ability to cooperate or agree. The trial judge will have to evaluate whether this is a temporary condition, very likely to abate upon resolution of the issues, or whether it is more permanent in nature. Only where the evidence is strong in support of a finding of the existence of a significant potential for compliance with this criterion should joint legal custody be granted. Blind hope that a joint custody agreement will succeed, or that forcing the responsibility of joint decision-making upon the warring parents will bring peace, is not acceptable. In the unusual case where the trial judge concludes that joint legal custody is appropriate notwithstanding the absence of a “track record” of willingness and ability on the part of the parents to cooperate in making decisions dealing with the child's welfare, the trial judge must articulate fully the reasons that support that conclusion.

Willingness of Parents to Share Custody. Generally, the parents should be willing to undertake joint custody or it should not be ordered. We are asked by Appellant, and by the Women's Legal Defense Fund as amicus curiae, to hold that a trial judge may never order joint legal custody over the objection of one parent. They argue, with some force, that unwillingness on the part of one parent to share custody inevitably presages intransigence or inability to cooperate in making decisions affecting the welfare of the child. While we agree that the absence of an express willingness on the part of the parents to accept a joint custody arrangement is a strong indicator that joint legal custody is contraindicated, we are unwilling to fashion a hard and fast rule that would have the effect of granting to either parent veto power over the possibility of a joint custody award. A caring parent, believing that sole custody is in the best interest of the child, may forcefully advance that position throughout the litigation but be willing and able to fully participate in a joint custody arrangement if that is the considered decision of the court.

Fitness of Parents. The psychological and physical capabilities of both parents must be considered, although the determination may vary depending upon whether a parent is being evaluated for fitness for legal custody or for physical custody. A parent may be fit for one type of custody but not the other, or neither, or both.

Relationship Established Between the Child and Each Parent. When both parents are seen by the child as a source of security and love, there is a favorable climate for joint custody. On the other hand, joint custody may be inappropriate when opposed by the child, or when there are indications that the psychological or emotional needs of the child would suffer under a joint custody arrangement.

Preference of the Child. The reasonable preference of a child of suitable age and discretion should be considered. In addition to being sensitive to the possible presence of the “lollipop” or “rescue” syndromes, the trial judge must also recognize that children often experience a strong desire to see separated parents reunited, and this motivation may produce an unrealistic preference for joint custody.

The so-called “lollipop syndrome” relates to the situation where one parent in a custody battle may shower the child with gifts and pleasant times, and impose no discipline in order to win the child's preference. The “rescue syndrome” relates to the expression of preference by a child for the parent perceived by the child to be the “weaker” of the two, in the belief that the stronger parent will survive in any event, but the weaker parent needs the child.

Potential Disruption of Child's Social and School Life. Joint physical custody may seriously disrupt the social and school life of a child when each parent has the child for half the year, and the homes are not in close proximity to one another. In such cases the amount of time each parent has physical custody may be adjusted without interfering with the concept of continued joint custody.

Geographic Proximity of Parental Homes. Parental homes within the same school district offer certain advantages in a joint custody situation. The child may enjoy joint physical custody without changing schools or being required to constantly change a circle of friends, and the parents may find proximity a benefit in discussing the decisions to be made concerning the child. However, distance is not a bar, and when the distance between homes is great, a joint custody arrangement may offer the only practical way to preserve to the child a meaningful relationship with each parent. Depending upon the age and emotional maturity of the child, similarity of the respective home environments may be desired, or exposure to dissimilar environments, cultures and opportunities for learning may be indicated.

Demands of Parental Employment. In some situations, joint physical custody will be appropriate only if the work hours of the parents are different, or there is flexibility in the demands of the employment of each.

Age and Number of Children. The factor of age obviously interrelates with other factors already discussed. The number of children involved may pose practical difficulties to a joint custody arrangement, but on the other hand may be helpful to both parents in bringing about a sharing of the pressures of single family parenting of a number of children. In rare cases, split custody may be preferred over sole or joint custody.

Sincerity of Parents' Request. A number of interested observers have opposed the concept of joint custody absent mutual agreement on the ground that one spouse may interpose a demand for joint custody solely to gain bargaining leverage over the other in extracting favorable alimony, child support or property concessions. Drawing upon the reasoning of King Solomon writers have suggested that a parent truly interested in the welfare of a child will give up almost anything to protect the child, and thus the threat of enforced joint custody can be used to extract unwarranted concessions. While the remedy they suggest-denial of joint custody in the absence of parental agreement-is unnecessarily restrictive, we acknowledge the legitimacy of these concerns and highlight the necessity to carefully examine the motives and sincerity of each parent.

Financial Status of the Parents. Joint physical custody imposes financial burdens upon the parents because of the necessity of maintaining two homes for the child, with separate furnishings and often separate toys, equipment, and clothing.

Impact on State or Federal Assistance. Aid to families with dependent children and eligibility for medical assistance may be affected by the award of joint custody. The necessary showing of “absence” of a parent may be challenged when there is an award of joint custody that includes shared physical custody. Although the primary focus is properly upon the best interest of the child, it is also appropriate to consider the salutary effect that joint custody may have on the parents, not only because their feelings and interests are worthy of consideration, but also because their improved self-image as parents is likely to redound to the ultimate benefit of the child.

Other Factors. The enumeration of factors appropriate for consideration in a joint custody case is not intended to be all-inclusive, and a trial judge should consider all other circumstances that reasonably relate to the issue. The resolution of a custody dispute continues to be one of the most difficult and demanding tasks of a trial judge. It requires thorough consideration of multiple and varied circumstances, full knowledge of the available options, including the positive and negative aspects of various custodial arrangements, and a careful recitation of the facts and conclusions that support the solution ultimately selected.

Marrage Type Relationship and Effect on Alimony in Divorce in Maryland

As we see in Whittington v. Whittington 172 Md.App. 317, 914 A.2d 212 Md.App.,2007 living in a marriage type relationship post divorce is a factor the court can consider in modifying alimony. So how does Maryland divorce law define a marriage type relationship. See Fisher v. Fisher75 Md.App. 193, 540 A.2d 1165Md.App.,1988. There the court determined this was not a marriage type relationship and further stated Although there is obviously no single mold into which all marriages (and therefore all “marriage-type relationships”) will fit, we think that the term envisions at least the normally accepted attributes of a marriage-a common residence which each party regards as his or her home, a common household to which each contributes, and a personal relationship that is more than casual and has significant meaning to each. These things are measured, of course, by living arrangements, by shared assets and expenses, and by how the parties and the community view their relationship.

Child Support and Divorce in Maryland

The court may order child-support retroactive back to the date of the filing of the petition that request child-support. The court also has the authority to require a parent to include the child on the parents health insurance policy is important to remember whenever you are seeking child-support that you must file the short form financial statement along with the pleading seeking the child-support payment. You can find this short form financial statement on my website. It is important when pursuing a child-support claim to have proof of your income as well as proof of your insurance premium as well as proof of child care cost and extraordinary medical expenses affecting the minor children. If you have questions regarding divorce in Maryland and Maryland child-support issues please feel free to call my office at 1-888-760-7339. We are happy to answer your questions for you right over the phone at no cost to you.http://www.divorceinmaryland.net/

Divorce in Maryland Setting Aside An Agreement

There are occasions when a party wishes to attack the Settlement Agreement. The grounds to set an agreement aside are:

1. Duress and Undue Influence

2. Lack of Consideration

3. Oppressive Agreement that Shocks the Conscience of the Court

4. Mutual Misunderstanding

5. Improper Counseling

6. Material Fraud

7. Negligent Misrepresentation

If you have questions regarding any aspect of your divorce in Maryland, please feel free to call me I am happy to answer you questions for you and will do so over the phone at no cost to you. 1-888-760-7339. yourmarylandlawyer.com

Limited Divorce in Divorce in Maryland

§ 7-102. Limited divorce (a) Grounds for limited divorce.

The court may decree a limited divorce on the following grounds: (1) cruelty of treatment of the complaining party or of a minor child of the complaining party; (2) excessively vicious conduct to the complaining party or to a minor child of the complaining party; (3) desertion; or (4) voluntary separation, if: (i) the parties are living separate and apart without cohabitation; and (ii) there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation. (b) Attempts at reconciliation. -- As a condition precedent to granting a decree of limited divorce, the court may: (1) require the parties to participate in good faith in the efforts to achieve reconciliation that the court prescribes; and (2) assess the costs of any efforts to achieve reconciliation that the court prescribes. (c) Time during which decree is effective. -- The court may decree a divorce under this section for a limited time or for an indefinite time. (d) Revocation of decree. -- The court that granted a decree of limited divorce may revoke the decree at any time on the joint application of the parties. (e) Decree of limited divorce on prayer for absolute divorce. -- If an absolute divorce is prayed and the evidence is sufficient to entitle the parties to a limited divorce, but not to an absolute divorce, the court may decree a limited divorce.

Immigration in Divorce in Maryland

The subject matter of immigration law is a detailed and complicated area of the law that affects many people's lives. Immigration questions should be directed towards an attorney who practices specifically immigration law. My practice focuses on divorce in Maryland. However there are some overlap areas in immigration law and divorce in Maryland. One such overlap exists in circumstances where a US citizen marries a spouse born in a foreign country. This foreign spouse may have rights relative to their immigration status based upon the fact that they have married a US citizen. As such in circumstances of a failed marriage one spouse will have greater leverage over the other as immigration status is now a potential weapon. The Violence Against Women Act (which also protects men) was enacted in 1994 and allows the foreign-born spouse to file a Self Petition and seeks to establish legal permanent residents if they meet certain requirements. Generally these requirements require the abused foreign spouse to establish that the abuser is a US citizen, that the marriage was entered into in good faith, that the parties were in fact married, that the foreign spouse has been subjected to a battery or extremely cruel behavior during marriage, the foreign spouse lived with her spouse under the same roof, and either resided in the United States, that the abuse occurred in the United States or their spouse is a US government employee or member of the Armed Forces. If you have questions regarding divorce in Maryland please feel free to give me a call at 1-888-760-7339. I will answer your questions for you over the phone at no cost to you.

Child Reference in a Custody Issue in divorce in Maryland

The courts in a divorce in Maryland will give weight to a child's preference when it comes to a custody dispute between the parents. Case law regarding the child's preference can be found in Ross versus Pick 86 A 2d. 463 (1952. This case involved the preference of a child over the age of 11. And was an initial order and not a modification. The court went on to define welfare of a child to include the considerations of training, development, morals and happiness of the child Maddox 174 MD 470. The welfare of the child is of course a major consideration on issues affecting modifications of prior child custody orders. Specifically it is necessary when filing a modification to establish that there had been a material change of circumstances affecting the child's welfare. Specifically training, development, morals, and the happiness of the child. However, as to preference the court in Ross determined that the child's own wishes may be consulted and further that Maryland adopts the role that there is no specific age of a child as a threshold before the court will consult with the child. The matter depends upon the extent of the child's mental development. The court will not exercise its discretion based upon a whim but will focus on the feelings, attachments, reasonable preferences and probable contentment of the minor child. A child's preference shall be given special consideration. If you have questions regarding child custody in a Maryland divorce please feel free to call my office at 1-888-760-7339 I am happy to answer your questions over the phone at no cost to you.

Limited Divorce and moving spouse out of the home

In Maryland you may file for a limited divorce upon proof of several grounds that are available. One such ground is constructive desertion. Pursuant to a string of cases in Maryland Scheinin; Mower; and Ricketts it is possible to file for limited divorce while you still reside under the same roof with your spouse. In the event you have minor children with your spouse it is possible for the court to award custody, visitation and child support even while on the parties live under the same roof. None of the above-mentioned cases address the court's authority to issue a use and possession order. However pursuant to the relief available under a limited divorce it is possible once you are awarded custody to secure a use and possession order pursuant to the limited divorce see FL 8-207, 11-101 alimony on limited divorce) . As such it is possible to remove your spouse from the marital home provided you can establish constructive desertion as your grounds for a limited divorce and you were awarded custody of the minor children. Constructive desertion appears in cases where marital relationships have ended and the parties while living under the same roof occupy separate bedrooms. As part of the proof it is also necessary to establish that the plaintiff has made an effort at reconciliation which has been denied. It is also necessary to establish by corroborating evidence that the separation has taken place.

Jurisdiction in Child Custody Maryland Divorce

Circumstances arise when parties relocate to different states and have children. When disputes arise over custody it becomes necessary for the court to determine which state should have the jurisdiction to hear the case. The law that governs is the Maryland Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“the Act”), Maryland Code (1984, 2006 Repl.Vol.), §§ 9.5–101 to 9.5–318 of the Family Law Article (“FL”) and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”)which once distilled provides essentially that to have jurisdiction over the custody issues the state shall not lack significant connections or substantial evidence. It is not the intent of the Act to postpone those determinations and thereby extend continuing jurisdiction indefinitely, for this also would defeat the Act's purposes. Paltrow v. Paltrow, 283 Md. 291, 293, 388 A.2d 547 (1978).

If you have issues involving custody issues please feel free to call my office. I will answer your question over the phone at no cost to you 1-888-760-7339.

Financial Statements and Divorce in Maryland

Whenever you have filed a complaint in a domestic matter in the state of Maryland and you are seeking either child-support or alimony it will be necessary to file a financial statement. In the case of a claim seeking only child support then you will file a short form financial statement. I have provided a link on my website to the forms necessary to be filed in the divorce in Maryland. Please feel free to call me if you a family member or a friend is in need of a divorce lawyer in Maryland. I will answer your questions over the phone at no cost to you 1-888-760-7339.

http://www.courts.state.md.us/family/forms/dr30.pdf

Reconciliation affecting Settlement Agreements in a Divorce in Maryland

There are circumstances where parties have entered into a settlement agreement resolving the issues of their divorce in Maryland. However the parties then resume their marital relationship only to subsequently separate again. The question arises what happens to their separation agreement and what impact does their reconciliation have on the validity of the agreement.

Maryland case law unequivocally holds that a separation agreement that is more than just a contract of separation and support is not abrogated by the mere resumption of cohabitation. Grossman v. Grossman, 234 Md. 139, 198 A.2d 260 (1964). See also Frana v. Frana, 12 Md.App. 273, 278 A.2d 94 (1971). In Frana this Court articulated the principle:

[A] contract of separation is annulled and avoided, not solely, or necessarily as a matter of law, by a subsequent reconciliation, cohabitation or resumption of the marital relationship, but rather by the intentional renunciation of the agreement which the reconciliation and resumption of marital relations sometimes evidences.
Id. at 284, 278 A.2d 94 quoting 30 C.J. § 847, p. 1065.

As such the court is saying that the fact that you reconcile is not in and of itself an automatic end to the prior agreement rather the reconciliation is evidence that the parties intended to renunciation the agreement.

If you have questions regarding settlement agreements or divorce in Maryland please feel free to call me at 1-888-760-7339. I will answer your questions over the phone at no cost to you.

Reconciliation Affecting Validity of Separation Agreement in a divorce in Maryland

There are circumstances where parties have separated from one another and or entered into a separation agreement resolving the issues of their marriage, they have subsequently separated, and they have subsequently reunited with one another. The question then arises what happens to the terms of the separation agreement in the event that the parties subsequently separate again for a second time. Maryland law has made clear that the subsequent reconciliation does not automatically terminate the terms of the agreement unless the intent of the parties is demonstrated to be otherwise. Please review 78 A 2d 173. There is case law is not as clear relative to the effect of reconciliation on alimony payments. Those payments made subsequent to agreement are different than those that are arrived at through court order. If you have questions regarding your separation agreement or any other matter affecting divorce in Maryland please feel free to give me a call at 1-888-760-7339. We will answer your questions over the phone at no cost to you.

Extracurricular activities in a Maryland child-support case

In child support cases involving above guideline incomes the court does have the authority to consider extracurricular activities as part of the child support calculation. While it is recognized by the court in Horsley v. Radisi, 132 Md. App. 1 750 A.2d 692, 705-706 (2000) guideline cases only recognize childcare, extraordinary medical expenses, the cost of attending special or private elementary or secondary schools and school transportation expenses can supplement the basic guideline award. The trial court is not permitted to add the cost of discretionary activities such as camp, music lessons, tutoring, gifted and talented program even where these activities are desirable or beneficial to the basic child support award.

Specifically, the court may find the application of the guidelines unjust or inappropriate and if the court so finds, it is required to provide a written or oral finding explaining the reasons why it has departed from the guidelines and how this departure serves the best interests of the children.

In above-guidelines cases, children's expenses including the cost of extracurricular activities may be considered and added to the award of child support. Voishan v. Palma, 327 Md. 318, 322, 609 A2d 319 (1992).

Family Law § 12-204(i) permits the court, to add the cost of private school to the basic award of child support. A court may depart from the guideline and require a parent to pay for educational tutoring an academically challenged or gifted student requires to meet the child's particular educational needs.

In an appropriate case the court may also depart from the guidelines and enable a child, who excels in a particular area e.g. art, music or athletics to pursue appropriate training to enhance these skills. However, justifying a departure from the guidelines requires more than a parent testifying that a child is intellectually "gifted" or that the public school cannot meet these educational needs. see the Horsley case.

If you have questions regarding divorce in Maryland or child-support issues in Maryland please feel free to give me a call at 1-888-760-7339. I'm happy to answer your questions for you over the phone at no cost to you.

Divorce In Maryland Custody and Substance Abuse

There are instances in a divorce in Maryland where custody and visitation access to minor children are core issues to be addressed by the court. There are circumstances where a parent has become involved with addictive behavior whether that is alcohol or drugs. The court has addressed these issues in the matter of Cohen v Cohan which recognizes of course the court's authority to curtail access provided it is established by the evidence that it is in the children's best interest. Ultimately the court will exercise its authority to supervise, suspend or require abstinence from the use of drugs and alcohol provided there is a high probability of substance abuse.

If you have questions regarding divorce in Maryland, Maryland child custody were issues of custody in Maryland please feel free to call me at 1-888-760-7339. We will answer your legal questions over the phone at no cost to you.

How to Divorce in Maryland Jurisdiction Issues

Maryland has a residency requirement that must be met before any party can file a complaint for a limited and or an absolute divorce in Maryland. If the grounds for divorce occurred outside the state of Maryland then at least one of the parties must have resided in Maryland for at least one year prior to filing the complaint for absolute divorce. You can refer to family law article section 7 – 101 (A) for information on this jurisdictional issue. The word residence as used in this family law article is equated with the word domicile.

Best Interest Attorney in a Divorce in Maryland

In every contested custody case, either party or the court has the option of ordering the appointment of a best interest attorney pursuant to Maryland family law article 1–202. This authority exist in every case where custody, visitation or the amount of support is contested. The best interest attorney serves as the advocate for the child.

Whenever there is a situation where a minor child has the right to assert a privilege however is too young to assert the privilege the court must appoint a guardian to act on the minor child have and make decisions as to what is in the child's best interest. Maryland code annotated Chords and Judicial Proceedings section 9–109 relates to this privilege as it affects the physician-patient relationship.

Historically the best interest attorney is an advocate for the minor child stated preferences and will also aid gathering information. Guidelines have been developed to assist the best interest attorney in representation of the minor child and their responsibilities. Maryland rule 9–205 provides as follows relative to the best interest attorneyRule 9-205.0. Appointment of child's counsel

(a) Applicability. This Rule applies to the appointment of child's counsel in actions involving child custody or child access.

Cross references. -- See Code, Family Law Article, § 1-202 and the Maryland Guidelines for Practice for Court-Appointed Lawyers Representing Children in Cases Involving Child Custody or Child Access.

(b) Factors. In determining whether to appoint child's counsel, the court should consider the nature of the potential evidence to be presented, other available methods of obtaining information, including social service investigations and evaluations by mental health professionals, and available resources for payment. Appointment may be most appropriate in cases involving the following factors, allegations, or concerns:

(1) request of one or both parties;

(2) high level of conflict;

(3) inappropriate adult influence or manipulation;

(4) past or current child abuse or neglect;

(5) past or current mental health problems of the child or party;

(6) special physical, educational, or mental health needs of the child that require investigation or advocacy;

(7) actual or threatened family violence;

(8) alcohol or other substance abuse;

(9) consideration of terminating or suspending parenting time or awarding custody or visitation to a non-parent;

(10) relocation that substantially reduces the child's time with a parent, sibling, or both; or

(11) any other factor that the court considers relevant.

A court should provide for adequate and effective child's counsel in all cases in which an appointment is warranted, regardless of the economic status of the parties. The court should make the appointment as soon as practicable after it determines that the appointment is warranted. A court should appoint only lawyers who have agreed to serve in child custody and child access cases in the assigned role and have been trained in accordance with Guideline 4 of the Maryland Guidelines for Practice for Court-Appointed Lawyers Representing Children in Cases Involving Child Custody or Child Access. In making appointments, the court should fairly and equitably distribute cases among all qualified attorneys, taking into account the attorney's availability and caseload. Before asking an attorney to provide representation pro bono publico to a child, the court should consider the number of other similar cases the attorney has recently accepted on a pro bono basis from the court.

(c) Appointment order.

(1) Content. An order appointing child's counsel shall:

(A) specify whether the attorney is to serve as a Child's Best Interest Attorney, Child's Advocate Attorney, or Child's Privilege Attorney;

(B) authorize the appointed attorney to have reasonable access to the child and to all otherwise privileged or confidential information about the child, without the necessity of any further order of court or the execution of a release;

(C) permit the attorney to participate in discovery under Title 2 of these Rules as though the child were a party;

(D) provide that the service and notice provisions in Title 1 of these Rules apply as though the child were a party;

(E) state any other duties or responsibilities required by the court;

(F) state when the appointment terminates; and

(G) unless the attorney has agreed to serve pro bono publico, include provisions concerning compensation for the attorney.

Cross references. -- The court should write an appointment order in plain language, understandable to non-lawyers.

(2) Copies to parties and counsel. The court shall send a copy of the order appointing counsel to each attorney of record and to each party, whether or not represented by an attorney.

Jointly titled reality in a divorce in Maryland

In cases that have been filed after October 1, 2006 while subject to the terms of any liens the court may transfer ownership of an interest in real property, which has been jointly owned by the parties when they lived together by

(1) ordering the transfer of ownership or any interest in the ownership to the other party, if that party obtains the release of the other party from any liens. Or

2) the court may authorize one party to purchase the other parties interested, provided everyone complies with the court's order and condition and terms.

You can find the statutory language for this court's ability to transfer ownership of property or a parties interested in ownership of property, provided there is a release of the mortgage. Or the court can authorize one party to buy out the other party on terms the court determines is appropriate. Family law article 8– 205.
If you have questions regarding divorce in Maryland and the disposition of marital property in a divorce in Maryland please feel free to call me and I will discuss your case over the phone at no cost to you. 1-888-760-7339

How to Divorce in Maryland

Before you are eligible to file a complaint for divorce in Maryland you must first establish that you are a Maryland resident entitled to the benefit of Maryland court jurisdiction. The next step is to establish your grounds for divorce. There is a difference between an absolute divorce and the grounds associated with that type of divorce and a limited divorce and the grounds associated with that type of divorce. The grounds for limited divorce can be found in § 7-102. Limited divorce

(a) Grounds for limited divorce. -- The court may decree a limited divorce on the following grounds:

(1) cruelty of treatment of the complaining party or of a minor child of the complaining party;

(2) excessively vicious conduct to the complaining party or to a minor child of the complaining party;

(3) desertion; or

(4) voluntary separation, if:

(i) the parties are living separate and apart without cohabitation; and

(ii) there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation.

(b) Attempts at reconciliation. -- As a condition precedent to granting a decree of limited divorce, the court may:

(1) require the parties to participate in good faith in the efforts to achieve reconciliation that the court prescribes; and

(2) assess the costs of any efforts to achieve reconciliation that the court prescribes.

(c) Time during which decree is effective. -- The court may decree a divorce under this section for a limited time or for an indefinite time.

(d) Revocation of decree. -- The court that granted a decree of limited divorce may revoke the decree at any time on the joint application of the parties.

(e) Decree of limited divorce on prayer for absolute divorce. -- If an absolute divorce is prayed and the evidence is sufficient to entitle the parties to a limited divorce, but not to an absolute divorce, the court may decree a limited divorce.

The grounds for an absolute divorce can be found in § 7-103. Absolute divorce

(a) Grounds for absolute divorce. -- The court may decree an absolute divorce on the following grounds:

(1) adultery;

(2) desertion, if:

(i) the desertion has continued for 12 months without interruption before the filing of the application for divorce;

(ii) the desertion is deliberate and final; and

(iii) there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation;

(3) conviction of a felony or misdemeanor in any state or in any court of the United States if before the filing of the application for divorce the defendant has:

(i) been sentenced to serve at least 3 years or an indeterminate sentence in a penal institution; and

(ii) served 12 months of the sentence;

(4) 12-month separation, when the parties have lived separate and apart without cohabitation for 12 months without interruption before the filing of the application for divorce;

(5) insanity if:

(i) the insane spouse has been confined in a mental institution, hospital, or other similar institution for at least 3 years before the filing of the application for divorce;

(ii) the court determines from the testimony of at least 2 physicians who are competent in psychiatry that the insanity is incurable and there is no hope of recovery; and

(iii) 1 of the parties has been a resident of this State for at least 2 years before the filing of the application for divorce;

(6) cruelty of treatment toward the complaining party or a minor child of the complaining party, if there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation; or

(7) excessively vicious conduct toward the complaining party or a minor child of the complaining party, if there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation.

(b) Recrimination. -- Recrimination is not a bar to either party obtaining an absolute divorce on the grounds set forth in subsection (a)(1) through (7) of this section, but is a factor to be considered by the court in a case involving the ground of adultery.

(c) Res judicata. -- Res judicata with respect to another ground under this section is not a bar to either party obtaining an absolute divorce on the ground of 12-month separation.

(d) Condonation. -- Condonation is not an absolute bar to a decree of an absolute divorce on the ground of adultery, but is a factor to be considered by the court in determining whether the divorce should be decreed.

(e) Effect of limited divorce on application for absolute divorce. --

(1) A court may decree an absolute divorce even if a party has obtained a limited divorce.

(2) If a party obtained a limited divorce on the ground of desertion that at the time of the decree did not meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2) of this section, the party may obtain an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion when the desertion meets the requirements of subsection (a)(2) of this section.

If you have questions regarding divorce in Marylan please feel free to call me at 1-888-760-7339. I am happy to answer your question and will do so right over the phone at no cost to you s