A Maryland court can modify an existing child custody or visitation order when there has been a “material change in circumstances that affects the welfare of the child.” This means that a parent cannot simply re-litigate an already decided issue with respect to custody. At the same time, the definition of a “material change” can be quite broad.

Financial Strain on Mother, COVID-19 Leads Maryland Court to Restrict Father’s In-Person Visitation Rights

For example, if there is a new threat to the “financial stability” of the child, that can qualify as a material change. In this context, this can refer to a sudden change in either parent’s ability to financially provide for the child’s needs.

A recent unreported decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Amakiri v. Okoronkwo, provides a case in point. This case involved a custody dispute between the parents of a 6-year-old child. The mother filed for divorce from the father in 2018 in Maryland, but she later relocated with the child to Massachusetts. The father continued to live in Maryland.

In 2019, the Maryland court granted a divorce. The judgment granted the mother primary physical custody of the child. Both parents retained joint legal custody with the mother having tie-breaking authority. The court also granted the father visitation rights, which required the mother to transport the child to Maryland every other Sunday.

About a year later, the mother filed a petition to modify the custody arrangements. She said there were several material changes in circumstances. Notably, the father had not paid any court-ordered child support. This strained the mother’s financial resources, particularly since she was required to travel with the child to Maryland twice per month.

The judge agreed there had been a material change in circumstances. In addition to the financial issues discussed above, the court said the “tension” between the parents had increased since the divorce and that alone justified reconsidering the issue of joint custody. Ultimately, the court granted sole legal and physical custody to the mother and ended and said the father would now only be allowed supervised, in-person visitation with the child in Massachusetts.

The father appealed, arguing there had not been any material change in circumstances. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s modification order. The appellate court noted that not only did the judge properly consider the financial strain on the mother from the required twice-monthly travel but also the fact she had not received child support from the father, which only added to her burden.

Both courts also noted the impact of COVID-19 on this case. This not only added to the mother’s financial struggles. It also made traveling across state lines for visitation impractical. To that end, the trial court said the father could receive his supervised visits “remotely through Zoom or other electronic means.”

Contact Waldorf Family Law Attorney Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.

Source:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6354769963903982652