Author: JGL Law

UPDATE:  During the 2021 Session, the Maryland General Assembly changed the effective date of this law change from October 1, 2021 (as originally passed in the 2020 Session) to July 1, 2022.

2022 will see 5 major changes to the child support guidelines, one of which concerns statutory updates to existing law on voluntary impoverishment and potential income.

Voluntary impoverishment basically means a parent choosing to be unemployed or underemployed (so, reduced his or her income) in order to avoid paying child support.  Starting July 1, 2022 for cases filed on and after that date*, Maryland will see changes to its child support definitions statute (Family Law Article §12-201 (PDF)) to:

• Add “Voluntarily Impoverished”:  A parent has made the free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond the parent’s control, to render the parent without adequate resources.  This definition is taken word for word from existing case law, Goldberger v. Goldberger, 96 Md.App. 313 (1993).
• Update “Potential Income”, which is income attributed to a voluntarily impoverished parent based upon their potential and probable earnings level, taking into account an updated series of factors:
  • The parent’s:
    • Age
    • Physical and behavioral condition
    • Educational attainment
    • Special training or skills
    • Literacy
    • Residence
    • Occupational qualifications and job skills
    • Employment and earnings history
    • Record of efforts to obtain and retain employment
    • Criminal record and other employment barriers
  • Employment opportunities in the community where the parents lives, including:
    • Status of the job market
    • Prevailing earnings levels
    • Availability of employers willing to hire the parent
  • The parent’s assets
  • The parent’s actual income from all sources
  • Any other factor bearing on parent’s ability to obtain funds for child support

The new law also sets out a framework in Family Law Article §12-204(b)(2) (PDF) for requiring the court to make a finding of voluntary impoverishment and consider the factors stated above when determining potential income.  Without explicitly requiring it, the statute certainly encourages the Court to state its reasons for the decision and how it considered the factors listed above.

Why did this come about?  Because Maryland is legally required to review its child support guidelines every 4 years and to keep up to date with federal law.  Per the Low-Income Subcommittee proposing these changes, these promote transparency and stronger focus on realistic consideration of potential income and amount of child support and discourage improper decisions.  In fact, research has shown that child support orders for too high an amount in fact result in less child support actually being paid.

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

• There are exceptions.  Don’t forget that Family Law Article §12-204(b) does not allow a court to attribute income to a parent who is either unable to work because of physical or mental disability or is caring for a child under the age of 2 years for whom the parents are jointly and severally responsible (so, a child in common).
• Collect & plan your evidence.  The potential income definition provides a detailed roadmap of the factors a court should consider.  Which requires evidence.  How will you prove a parent’s efforts to obtain and retain employment?  Status of the local job market?  Prevailing wages?  Availability of employers willing to hire the parent?  Parent’s assets?  Online job listings and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics may be just two starting points.  Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and trial subpoenas, a few of many tools, may be needed to ask about the parent’s efforts.
• Does it call for an expert?  Attributing high income potential may justify hiring a vocational rehabilitation expert to research and testify about the local job market, local wages, and willingness of employers to hire.  This requires consideration of the expert’s cost and potential benefit.

* Maryland law does not allow legislative changes to the child support guidelines law, themselves alone, to serve a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support (Maryland Code, Family Law Article §12-202(b)) or modification of child support to a date before a request is filed with the Court.  But Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) provides an interesting and complicated discussion of when these exclusions may not apply.  Worth a look if interested in applying July 1, 2022 changes to cases filed or circumstances existing before that date.

For other articles in this series about updates to the child support guidelines law in 2020 and 2022:

• 2020 Updates
  • Shared Physical Custody
  • Incarcerated Obligors/Payors
• 2022 Updates
  • Potential Income/Voluntary Impoverishment
  • Self-Support Reserve for low income parents
  • No Support Order
  • Updated Economic Data
  • Parents’ Combined Income of $15,001-$30,000/month

Since 2002, Lindsay Parvis has represented clients in Maryland custody, divorce, and marital matters. She negotiates, litigates, and advocates for the best interests of her clients, whether in contested litigation, uncontested settlement, or premarital and other agreements. Her clients are not only spouses and parents, but also children whose interests she is appointed by the court to represent in contested custody litigation.  Lindsay strives to improve Maryland law in the General Assembly, volunteering her time to monitor, advocate, and educate about legislative developments in family law.

UPDATE:  During the 2021 Session, the Maryland General Assembly changed the effective date of this law change from October 1, 2021 (as originally passed in the 2020 Session) to July 1, 2022.

The 2020 Session of the Maryland General Assembly saw several major developments to Maryland’s law on child support, some of which went into effect October 1, 2020 and the others (originally supposed to go into effect October 1, 2021) starting July 1, 2022.

This series of articles discusses those changes and provides tips for parents and attorneys in child support negotiation, mediation, and litigation.

The series covers these changes in the law:

• 2020 Updates
  • Shared Physical Custody
  • Incarcerated Obligors/Payors
• 2022 Updates
  • Potential Income/Voluntary Impoverishment
  • Self-Support Reserve for low income parents
  • No Support Order
  • Updated Economic Data
  • Parents’ Combined Income of $15,001-$30,000/month

My biggest tip: Calculate & Compare.  What does that mean?  Read each article to find out…

Since 2002, Lindsay Parvis has represented clients in Maryland custody, divorce, and marital matters. She negotiates, litigates, and advocates for the best interests of her clients, whether in contested litigation, uncontested settlement, or premarital and other agreements. Her clients are not only spouses and parents, but also children whose interests she is appointed by the court to represent in contested custody litigation.  Lindsay strives to improve Maryland law in the General Assembly, volunteering her time to monitor, advocate, and educate about legislative developments in family law.

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake has been representing clients in suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia for almost 50 years. With offices in Greenbelt and Rockville, Maryland, we have lawyers who focus their practices in diverse areas of the law, including employment and whistleblower actions, family law, estates and trusts, civil rights, business planning and commercial litigation, personal injury, medical and professional negligence.

In this episode, we have JGL Attorney, Matthew J. Focht & Melissa Mordell Gomez.

In this episode, they discuss the following topics and more:

1. Tools used to make predictions about Jury behaviors
2. Affects of the pandemic on the process
3. Experience of Maryland-specific Jury trials
4. Advice for attorneys as trial resume back

JGL LAW FOR YOU brings you up close and personal with our lawyers who will be discussing how to navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events and how they may affect you.

All Told, Whistleblowers Responsible For Over $33M Back To Taxpayers

GREENBELT, MD – May 3, 2021 – A whistleblower case filed in 2016 concluded after the remaining defendant, spine surgeon Wilson Asfora, settled with the government for $4.4 million and a six-year exclusion from all federal payer programs, effectively precluding him from practicing medicine during that time.

Two fellow surgeons filed the complaint as whistleblowers under the False Claims Act. They alleged that Asfora sold his own medical devices for surgeries he performed, resulting in an unlawful economic incentive for him to use, and overuse, his own devices on unsuspecting patients. They alleged that the result was multi-level, medically unnecessary spinal fusion surgeries on scores of patients. The complaint recounted that before filing, the whistleblowers first implored Asfora and Sanford to stop the dangerous, unnecessary spinal surgeries to no avail.

The United States joined (intervened) the lawsuit, filing its own complaint against Asfora. The government complaint echoed whistleblowers’ — that Asfora engaged in kickback schemes to pay himself to use his medical devices in surgeries. It also alleged that Asfora received numerous warnings for years that he was performing unnecessary surgeries with his devices while personally profiting, and that patients were harmed.

The Department of Justice announced today its settlement with Asfora for $4.4 million and a rare exclusion for him and his entities from all federal healthcare programs, including Medicare, for six years. Acting U.S. Attorney Dennis R. Holmes for the District of South Dakota commented, “South Dakota is fortunate to have many honest and dedicated healthcare providers who strive daily to provide high quality services. Dr. Asfora and his companies violated the trust that so many others have worked hard to earn.”

The whistleblowers are dedicated healthcare workers who, as of today, met their goal of protecting patients from these unnecessary and harmful surgeries and seeing changes to ensure this does not happen again. All told, the whistleblowers’ information led to over $33 million in recovery for the government related to Asfora, though they do not share in all of those recoveries.

For its part, Sanford fired Asfora and settled with the federal government for $20.25 million, believed to be the largest qui tam settlement in South Dakota history. It also entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General requiring monitoring and changes to its compliance and anti-kickback policies. Sanford separately settled with South Dakota for $329,412.21 for Medicaid charges related to the Asfora claims.

The federal government separately pursued Medtronic USA, Inc. related to allegations that it paid kickbacks to Asfora to induce his use of its products. According to the Department of Justice, at Asfora’s request, Medtronic allegedly paid him kickbacks through his restaurant, Carnaval Brazilian Grill, in the form of lavish meals and alcohol for Asfora and his friends, colleagues and business partners. The United States settled with Medtronic for over $9.2 million in late 2020.   

Asfora denied the allegations, continuing to defend the claims after Sanford settled, and filing his own action against Sanford alleging wrongful termination. Earlier this year, however, Asfora dismissed the Sanford suit. With today’s announced settlement, all pending public actions are resolved.

JGL’s Veronica Nannis and Jay Holland represent the physician whistleblowers. “Though many knew about the alleged improper conduct, our clients were the only ones who came forward publicly, despite real risk to their reputations and their very livelihoods,” commented Nannis. “We are so proud to represent them and to see a measure of justice served,” she added.   

Mr. Holland thanked the assistance of their esteemed South Dakota local counsel, Robert Anderson, and praised the comprehensive investigation and skilled litigation performed by the experienced government attorneys dedicated to this case, particularly DOJ Trial Attorneys Chris Terranova and Harin Song along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Meghan Roche and Ellie Bailey from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sioux Falls. “The government’s tenacity in investigating and wholeheartedly pursuing this case all the way to conclusion underscores its continued commitment to protect patients, root out fraud and protect taxpayer dollars,” said Holland. 

Greenbelt, Maryland based Joseph, Greenwald & Laake filed the lawsuit in August 2016. The case caption is U.S. ex rel Bechtold v. Sanford Health, et al., Case 4:16-cv-04115-LLP (S.D.).

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake has been representing clients in suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia for almost 50 years. With offices in Greenbelt and Rockville, Maryland, we have lawyers who focus their practices in diverse areas of the law, including employment and whistleblower actions, family law, estates and trusts, civil rights, business planning and commercial litigation, personal injury, medical and professional negligence.

In this episode, we have JGL Attorney, Debora Fajer-Smith & David Schoenfeld.

In this episode, they discuss the following topics and more:

1. The new emergency case the new emergency case 
2. Covid and causation in the work force  
3. Gig economy cases such as drivers and delivery 
4. Stay-at-home work related injuries 

JGL LAW FOR YOU brings you up close and personal with our lawyers who will be discussing how to navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events and how they may affect you.

Representation of client in wrongful death medical malpractice case with a verdict of $6,000,000.

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake has been representing clients in suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia for almost 50 years. With offices in Greenbelt and Rockville, Maryland, we have lawyers who focus their practices in diverse areas of the law, including employment and whistleblower actions, family law, estates and trusts, civil rights, business planning and commercial litigation, personal injury, medical and professional negligence.

In this episode, we have JGL Attorneys, Rama Taib-Lopez & Allison McFadden.

In this episode, he answers the following questions and more:

1. What are the requirements of a mutual consent divorce?
2. What does a written agreement need to include?
3. What are the benefits of a mutual consent divorce?
4. Do you still need a lawyer?

JGL LAW FOR YOU brings you up close and personal with our lawyers who will be discussing how to navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events and how they may affect you.

Intimate partner violence and abuse is on the rise during the pandemic.  The statistics are staggering – 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men experience intimate partner violence in some form.¹ Intimate partner violence can take many forms including emotional, physical, sexual or financial – it impacts women and men of every race, gender, orientation, and class.

This Blog expands upon Erika’s & Lindsay’s joint JGL Law for You Podcast Episode When Divorce, Infidelity, Harassment & the Workplace Mix:  Issues to Look Out For.

From Erika on the Employment & Sexual Harassment Law Perspectives:

Financial control is one tactic often employed by abusers to keep their victims in the cycle of dependence and abuse.  Financial abuse can take many forms: abusers may stalk or harass their victims at work, attempt to get them fired, or injuries from physical or mental abuse may keep victims out of the workplace.  So what do you do if your partner or ex is stalking or harassing you in your workplace? 

Some states have stepped up to enact robust measures to protect victims of domestic violence in the workplace.  For example, Washington, DC recently amended the DC Human Rights Act of 1977, to make it illegal for employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations in the District of Columbia to discriminate against an employee or an applicant for employment based on their status as a victim or family member of a victim of domestic violence, a sexual offense, or stalking.  California, and a number of other states also offers similar protections for employees who are victims of domestic violence.

Broadly, these laws prevent employees for being retaliated against for an abuser’s harassment, for seeking court intervention to protect themselves, or for seeking accommodations to obtain physical or mental health treatment for their abuse.  These laws also often contain requirements that put an affirmative duty on employers to take steps to increase the safety of victims at work.

However, not every state has express protections for victims of abuse in the workplace.  For example, Maryland state law does not currently provide express protections for victims of domestic violence at work, as being a victim of domestic abuse is not considered a protected class under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act.  Even if your state does not provide express protections for you in the workplace, you may still be protected under federal law. 

For example, domestic violence that results in the victim experiencing physical or mental injuries may require your employer to provide job-protected leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, or provide you with reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Similarly, if your employer has different standards for men and women – such as allowing men to leave work without penalty for custody hearings, while penalizing women for taking time off to obtain a protective order, you may also have protection under Title VII for sex discrimination.

Given how critical financial independence is as a pathway for victims of domestic violence to get out of the cycle of abuse, it is critical that you take steps to protect your rights in the workplace.  If you think you are being discriminated against or retaliated against because you are a victim of domestic violence, you should contact a lawyer for help.

From Lindsay on the Family Law Perspective:

Peace and Protective Orders are civil orders that require the abuser to stop the behavior, have no contact, and stay away from the victim, victim’s home and workplace.  A person is eligible either for a Peace Order or a Protective Order, not both.  While civil orders (which means the type of case is not a criminal one), a violation of these orders (so, failure to comply) can result in criminal charges and prosecution.

Which Order is available to a victim depends upon the answers to these two questions:

1. What is the relationship of the victim and abuser?
2. What is the abusive behavior?

The answer to “What is the relationship?” matters because the relationship is the first step in figuring out which Order a victim is eligible for.  A Protective Order is available to a spouse, ex-spouse, cohabitant,  an individual with a child in common with the abuser, or an individual who had a sexual relationship with the abuser within 1 year of filing a Petition for Protection.  A Peace Order is available to everyone else.  So for example, current dating partners whose relationship was not sexual or ex-dating partners without a sexual relationship in the last year are eligible for a Peace Order.

The answer to “What is the abusive behavior?” matters because the behavior these Orders protect against is not the same for both Orders.  In the context of stalking and stalking-like behavior, a Protective Order protects against stalking and revenge porn, while a Peace Order protects against harassment, trespass, malicious destruction of property, criminal misuse of a phone, criminal misuse of a computer, revenge porn, and criminal visual surveillance.  Likewise, the behavior that allows a Court to grant these Orders is not the same for both Orders.

Even if the problem behavior is not eligible for a Protective Order, it may still be relevant in divorce, child custody, and potentially child support and alimony cases. 

In divorce, if the behavior is a circumstance that led to the estrangement of the parties, that’s a factor the court considers when deciding alimony and division of property.  Also, problem behavior may be considered by a court when deciding child custody if the child(ren) were exposed to the behavior and negatively impacted by it.  Finally, if the victim loses his/her job because of the abuser’s behavior, a court might not find the victim voluntarily impoverished (deliberately unemployment or underemployed to avoid paying support) for child support calculation and alimony eligibility.

When abuse arises and the abuser has a security clearance for his/her job and financial support (child support and alimony) are potential issues, the abuser may be at risk of losing his/her security clearance and job from the entry of a Peace or Protective Order.  When that is a possibility, sometimes the parties will opt for a no contact/stay away agreement and consent order, filed in the family law case (and not a Protective Order case).  While the Peace and Protective Order process has standard “fill in the blank” forms, there’s no contact/stay away agreements and consent orders and these have to be negotiated and drafted for each individual client.

When the stalking and abusive behavior between the parties occurs in their family-owned business, it is more challenging to establish protections that allow for the business to continue normally.  Normal business operations fund family cashflow and maintain the business’s value, two important considerations for property valuation in divorce and cashflow for support (alimony and child support). 

These complicated issues are best discussed with an attorney to understand the unique circumstances, available solutions, and their consequences.

1. Evans, Megan, L., M.D., Lindauer, Margo, J.D., Farrell, Maureen E., M.D., The New England Journal of Medicine, A Pandemic within a Pandemic — Intimate Partner Violence during Covid-19, available online at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2024046 ↩︎

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake has been representing clients in suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia for almost 50 years. With offices in Greenbelt and Rockville, Maryland, we have lawyers who focus their practices in diverse areas of the law, including employment and whistleblower actions, family law, estates and trusts, civil rights, business planning and commercial litigation, personal injury, medical and professional negligence.

In this episode, we have JGL Attorney, Matt Bryant.

In this episode, he answers the following questions and more:

1. What are the grounds for challenging a Will? 
2. What is Testamentary Capacity?
3. Is ‘Delusion’ a sufficient evidence?
4. What would qualify as an ‘undue influence’? 

JGL LAW FOR YOU brings you up close and personal with our lawyers who will be discussing how to navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events and how they may affect you.

Attorneys Brian Markovitz and Michal Shinnar represent three individuals who faced workplace discrimination at the U.S. Government Printing Office, including open Anti-Semitic and Nazis propaganda.

Successfully defended, as part of a team, on appeal a decision by the Orphans’ Court that spouse who procured a marriage by undue influenced forfeited her right to claim an elective share against her husband’s estate.

The appellate decision is available here (PDF).

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake has been representing clients in suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia for almost 50 years. With offices in Greenbelt and Rockville, Maryland, we have lawyers who focus their practices in diverse areas of the law, including employment and whistleblower actions, family law, estates and trusts, civil rights, business planning and commercial litigation, personal injury, medical and professional negligence.

In this episode, we have two JGL Attorneys, Lindsay Parvis & Erika Jacobsen White.

In this episode, they answer the following questions and more:

1. What if someone works with their spouse or romantic partner, their spouse/partner is their boss, and they are breaking up?  What issues look out for? 
2. What if a spouse finds suggestive texts/sexts from their spouse to the spouse’s co-worker? 
3. What if Employee spouse and co-worker are having an affair?  Are the concerns different? 
4. “My ex is stalking or harassing me at my workplace” – what do I need to consider?  What remedies are available? 

JGL LAW FOR YOU brings you up close and personal with our lawyers who will be discussing how to navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events and how they may affect you.