When it comes to child custody disputes, a Maryland court is required to consider what arrangements will be in the “best interests of the child.” But Maryland law also requires a court to protect a parent who has been abused by the other parent when making arrangements regarding child custody or visitation. Are these obligations potentially in conflict?

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently addressed that question. The case before the Court, J.A.B. v. J.E.D.B., involved a child custody dispute between a mother and father. The parents married in 2009 and had two minor children. As the appellate court explained, “Throughout the marriage, both parties were abusive to each other.” However, there was no abuse either parent physically abused the children.

Divorce proceedings began in 2017. In 2020, a circuit court judge found that the father “was abusive to [the] Mother throughout the course of the marriage.” The judge awarded the mother sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the children. The father was granted only “specific and limited” visitation rights.

On appeal, the father argued the court improperly prioritized the “protection of Mother from Father … over the best interests of the parties’ minor children.” The Court of Special Appeals disagreed and affirmed the circuit court’s custody and visitation order. The appellate court noted the legislature expressly drafted the law out of “deep concern over the effect on a child of being in the maelstrom of any domestic violence within the home, including the abuse of adults,” even in cases, like this one, where the subject child was not themselves a target of the abuse.

More to the point, the presence of abuse was just one of “several factors” that a trial court can consider when resolving a child custody dispute. In this case, the judge found the mother’s testimony regarding the father’s abuse to be “credible.” Conversely, the judge rejected the father’s testimony. It was normally up to the trial judge to weigh credibility.

Ultimately, the Court of Special Appeals said there was no conflict between the “best interests of the child” standard and the legislative mandate to protect an abused parent. Here, the judge properly determined the best way to protect both mother and child was not to award sole custody to the mother. This would “protect Mother from any further abuse or coercive control by Father.” In addition, the trial court took appropriate steps to protect the mother and children during the father’s supervised visitation, such as requiring the hand-offs to occur at a police precinct or “other public location” jointly agreed upon by the parties.

Contact La Plata, Maryland, 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=11316357070848221593