Even when a Maryland court decides issues regarding child custody and visitation rights, that does not necessarily mean an end to the conflict or animosity between the parents. To the contrary, parents often continue to fight outside of court–and in the presence of their children–over all sorts of issues, some of them trivial. Such disagreements can escalate over time and even lead one parent to seek further judicial action against the other parent.

Court of Special Appeals: Mother’s “Emotional Distancing” Actions Did Not Amount to “Intentional Interference” with Father’s Visitation Rights

A recent decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Haines v. Vogel, provides an apt illustration. This case involves the divorced parents of two children, one of whom is still a minor. After the mother filed for divorce in 2013, a court granted the father visitation rights one night per week plus alternating weekends.

In 2019, the father sued the mother, alleging that she engaged in “intentional interference” with his visitation and custody rights. He also made a claim for “intentional inflection of emotional distress” (IIED). More precisely, the father pointed to a number of allegedly hostile acts by the mother, which he believed served to alienate the children from him. For example, the father alleged the mother encouraged the children not to return his phone calls. He also cited an incident where the mother “sped away” and left one of the children in the parking lot of a Maryland police barracks because they took “too long to hug and say goodbye” to the father.

The Court of Special Appeals, upholding a prior ruling made by a circuit court judge, dismissed the father’s complaint. With respect to intentional interference with visitation rights, the Court said that such a claim requires proof that the mother physically removed or harbored the child from the father. In other words, if the mother had taken the child and fled the state, that would qualify as intentional interference. But allegations of “emotional distancing” a child from a parent is not enough. Even if, as the father alleged here, the mother acted in a manner to try and convince the child not to visit the father, that would not by itself rise to the level of intentional interference.

As for the IIED claim, the Court of Special Appeals said that it requires evidence of “extreme or outrageous conduct” intended to cause emotional distress. Again, the Court said the mother’s alleged conduct here was not outrageous. Nor did it lead to “severe” emotional distress as required by Maryland law.

Contact a Southern Maryland Child Custody Lawyer Today

When it comes to child custody and visitation rights, both parents should always strive to work together in good faith and for the best interests of their children. It should also go without saying that neither parent should ever deliberately refuse to follow a court order. And if disagreements do arise, each parent should consult with an experienced Waldorf, Maryland, family law attorney who can provide them with competent legal advice on how to address their concerns.

This article has been provided by 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/data/opinions/cosa/2021/1789s19.pdf