Child custody is often a contentious issue between two parents who are not together. Maryland law provides a means of establishing custody and visitation rights for both parents. Understandably, some parents are unhappy with the results produced by this system. But it should go without saying that you cannot take the law into your own hands and defy the court’s instructions.

Nor should you attempt to argue that the law simply does not apply to you. Take this recent decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Nickens v. Muse. This case involved a custody dispute arising from a 2016 divorce. Under the final terms of the divorce approved by a Maryland court, the mother and father agreed to share custody of their minor child 50/50, and neither parent would owe child support to the other.

About six months later, the mother asked the court to modify the terms of the custody order and grant her child support. The court agreed and awarded the mother primary physical custody of the child, with visitation rights to the father, who would not have to pay child support. Roughly two years later, the father filed his own petition to modify custody.

The situation had apparently deteriorated over the intervening years. According to the Court of Special Appeals, the father admitted he was “hiding” the child from the mother at an “undisclosed location” for a period of approximately five months. The court ordered the father to return the child to the mother’s custody. The judge then awarded the mother sole legal custody and continued the father’s child support requirements.

During the hearing, the father, who represented himself without an attorney, said he had refused to return the child because he “was getting his time back” and claimed the mother was “limiting his access” to their child. The father also insisted he would not agree to any order granting the mother sole custody, stating that his “religious philosophy” gave him final say over the child’s welfare. The father further denied the court had any legal authority to compel him to return the child.

Not surprisingly, the judge did not accept any of these arguments. The father, still representing himself, appealed the judge’s return order, continuing to argue that the lower court lacked jurisdiction and that the judge issued a “death threat” against him.

In reality, the Court of Special Appeals explained, the judge simply pointed out to the father that law enforcement was authorized to “use all reasonable and necessary force” to ensure the child was returned to the mother, as the judge ordered. This was a completely appropriate act, the appellate court said, as was the judge’s underlying order.

Contact Southern 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=11960516549963411533