Allegations of domestic abuse are not uncommon in Maryland divorce and child custody cases. Sometimes these allegations are false and simply designed to try and gain the “upper hand” in the underlying legal dispute. But many of these allegations turn out to be valid.

A Maryland judge has the authority to issue a protective order against anyone found to have committed domestic violence or abuse. The standard in such cases is civil rather than criminal. In other words, the party alleging abuse need only prove their case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” as opposed to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold that a prosecutor must satisfy.

In a “He Said/She Said” Case, it Often Comes Down to Whom the Judge Believes

The preponderance of the evidence standard often means that when faced with a “he said/she said” situation, the judge often bases their decision on which party they find more credible.

Take this recent unpublished opinion from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Dixon v. Fahnbulleh. In this case, a mother and father were involved in a child custody dispute. A week before the scheduled hearing on the custody issue, the mother filed a petition for a temporary protective order, alleging the father had abused her and their child. More precisely, the mother said that during an argument the previous year the father “had hit and choked her, shoved her to the ground, and threatened her and her family members.”

A judge granted the temporary order. At a subsequent hearing on whether to issue a final protective order, the mother repeated her allegations. The father replied the mother was lying and that given the timing of her petition–six days before the custody hearing–she was trying to garner sympathy from the judge after failing to appear at the hearing itself.

Ultimately, a circuit court judge found the mother’s testimony more credible than that of the father. The judge issued a final protective order for a period of one year. The father appealed.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the final protective order. In any appellate review, the appeals court is required to accept the trial judge’s findings of fact are true unless there is “clear error.” Essentially, the Court of Special Appeals would not second-guess the trial judge’s decision to find the mother’s testimony more credible. Now, the judge is not required to accept any party’s testimony at face value. The court can accept or reject “all, part, or none” of any witness’ testimony.

But in this case, the judge decided the mother was telling the truth and the father was lying. That was enough to satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to issue a domestic violence protective order.

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://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/1365s21.pdf