When determining a parent’s child support obligation, Maryland courts are required to determine what is in the “best interests of the child.” This standard applies not just to any initial calculation of support but also any subsequent modifications. It is critical for judges to follow the law, as a parent’s failure to understand their support obligations could end up landing them in trouble with the court later.

Court of Special Appeals: Trial Judge Failed to Consider “Best Interests” of Children Before Amending Definition of “Transportation Costs”

Take this recent case from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Huff v. Huff. This case involved the parents of two minor children who divorced in 2019. Under the original terms of their divorce judgment, the parents shared physical custody of the children based on an “access schedule.” Because the mother was an active duty member of the Navy, and thus subject to redeployment, the judgment further provided that the mother and father would split the costs of transporting the children between their homes 65/35.

A few months later, the mother filed a petition to hold the father in contempt for failing to pay his share of the transportation costs. At this point, the mother was deployed to a Navy base in Norfolk, Virginia. She would drive to and from the father’s home in Baltimore for her scheduled time with the children. The mother said this driving time should be factored into the transportation costs under the divorce judgment, using the IRS standard mileage rate of 58 cents per mile. Based on the total miles driven, the wife said she was entitled to 35% of that mileage rate, which came to just over $1,200.

The father acknowledged he was required to pay 35% of the mother’s transportation costs. But he disputed the use of the IRS mileage rate as the basis for reimbursing the mother. He argued that under the terms of the divorce judgment, transportation costs only included the mother’s out-of-pocket expenses, such as gas and tolls. More to the point, the judgment never precisely defined what was meant by “transportation costs.”

The judge ultimately sided with the mother and held the father in contempt for failing to pay transportation costs. The Court of Special Appeals partially reversed. It agreed the father was in contempt for basically paying the mother nothing for her transportation costs. But the appellate court also found that the trial judge was wrong to “amend” the definition of transportation costs without first holding a hearing to decide if such a change was actually in the best interests of the children. The judge needed to conduct a “more in-depth inquiry into the financial status of the parties and the practical effect” of amending the definition before ordering the father to pay up.

Speak with a Waldorf, Maryland, Family Law Attorney 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.