Third party custody is one of the fastest developing areas of Maryland law, seeing many major changes since 2016. This series of articles explores these developments and raises questions about where this area of the law is heading.

This series discusses:

Who is a Step-Parent?

Perhaps to state the obvious and relying on Kpetigo v. Kpetigo, 238 Md.App. 561 (2018), a step-parent is the spouse of a biological or adoptive parent.

In child custody, a step-parent is, legally speaking, a third party.  A third party is someone who is not the child’s biological parent or adoptive parent.  These third parties are, legally, strangers to the child (unless certain conditions are met).  Practically, they may serve as a parent. 

The law treats third parties differently than biological or adoptive parents in a custody case.  And there are different categories of third parties, with different legal standards to prove.  There are 1) De Facto parents and 2) everyone else.

Plus, visitation and custody are treated as very much the same (despite how practically different they may look).

What Custody Rights do Step-Parents Have?

Kpetigo v. Kpetigo, 238 Md.App. 561 (2018) involved custody litigation between a parent and step-parent, in which the step-parent sought legal recognition as a De Facto parent of the parent’s child from a previous relationship.  Before filing suit, the parent consented to joint legal and physical custody (50/50 schedule) of the child.  Suit was filed to enforce and modify the consent agreement.  At trial, the step-parent was awarded joint legal custody with tie-breaker and primary residential custody with visitation to the parent.  Also, child support between parent and step-parent was decided.

The child’s second biological parent lived abroad and did not participate in the litigation.

“Generally, step-parents who have neither adopted a child nor be declared his guardian have no parental rights or obligations that survive divorce.”  (Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, 294 Md. 183 (1982))  However, when a step-parent wants custodial rights and meets the legal standard to be considered a De Facto parent, a step-parent may seek recognition as a De Facto parent without proving exceptional circumstances or parental unfitness.

The Kpetigo decision decides a number of issues:

  • Conover’s De Facto parent standard does not apply only to same-sex couples (This author recognizes that one parent in Conover was transgender and transitioned between the court trial and the appeal, though the opinion does not clearly reflect this);
  • In fact, the gender of the parties does not matter;
  • And, whether the parties are married or not does not matter;
  • De Facto parents could be grandparents, opposite-sex step-parents, boyfriends and girlfriends, aunts and uncles, and (potentially) a neighbor; and,
  • The parent’s one-sided consent (without absent parent’s involvement in the litigation or objection) was sufficient consent to create a De Facto parent relationship (discussed more below and in my blog, De Facto Parents & Multi-Parent Families.

Questions Raised…But Not Yet Answered

Conover hinges on consent – a parent’s consent to the De Facto parent serving as a parent.  Conover only involved 2 potential parents – the biological parent and the De Facto parent.  Kpetigo took this a half-step further.  I use “half-step” because the parent’s consent was one-sided and because the absent parent did not participate, so the sufficiency of one-sided consent was not litigated or disputed. 

Kpetigo left unanswered the questions of:

  • Consent & whether one parent could unilaterally consent to a De Facto parent relationship?
  • Consent & whether one-sided is sufficient to establish a De Facto parent relationship over the objection of the second parent?
  • Whether Maryland formally recognizes multiple De Facto parents?

Looking Ahead

A quick comment about evolving thinking on this…  In 2016’s Conover v. Conover, 450 Md. 51 (2016), the Court of Appeals’s majority opinion cautioned against multi-parent families.  In its Footnote 18, the Court of Appeals recommended taking into account when deciding custody whether others had already been recognized as De Facto parents and cautioned courts to “avoid having a child or family be overburdened or fractured by multiple persons seeking access.”  One of the concurring opinions found this caution odd in light of the unanswered question of unilateral consent.

The lower appellate Court’s Kpetigo decision opens the door for multi-parent families, without a definitive resolution (because biological mother opted out of the litigation, so her rights were not considered), and raises (but does not answer) the question of whether De Facto parenthood can be established with only one parent’s consent.  One needn’t wait long…2020’s E.N. v. T.R. (247 Md.App. 234 (2020)) (discussed in my next blog, “De Facto Parents & Multi-Parent Families ”) answers these, and raises more, increasingly complex questions in result.

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.

You can follow her for discussion, news, and developments in Maryland family law on LinkedInFacebookInstagramTwitterLindsayParvis.com, and YouTube.

Third party custody is one of the fastest developing areas of Maryland law, seeing many major changes since 2016. This series of articles explores these developments and raises questions about where this area of the law is heading.

This series discusses:

Who/What is a Third Party?

In the context of child custody, a third party is someone who is not the child’s biological parent or adoptive parent.  A third party may be related by parents’ marriage or blood (other than biological parent), or may be entirely unrelated to the child.  Legally, they are strangers to the child (unless certain conditions are met, which this series explores).  Practically, they are significantly involved in raising a child.

The law treats third parties differently than biological or adoptive parents in a custody case.  Third parties fall into different categories with different legal standards.  There are 1) De Facto parents and 2) everyone else.

A relevant side point is that custody and visitation are legally equivalent (though, practically, can be quite different).

A Quick (and Abbreviated) Timeline

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) opinion on grandparent visitation rights.  In result, third party custody and visitation rights could no longer be evaluated based solely upon the best interests of the child.  Troxel calls for sufficient protection of a parent’s Constitutional right of care, custody, and control of their children.  After Troxel and before 2016, Maryland’s third party custody law backtracked and, frankly, suffered.  (My blog “Grandparent Visitation (Sigh.)” fills in this part of the timeline.)

The first major positive development occurred in 2016 with Conover v. Conover, 450 Md. 51 (2016), which reestablished the legal category of De Facto parents.  The Conover case examined third party custody for a same-sex and/or transgender married couple (see its Footnote 1 regarding gender), only one of whom was biologically related to the child.  For an introduction to who is a De Facto parent, please read this blog.

2017 ushered in major updates to Maryland’s third party custody law (so, everyone who is not a De Facto parent) in Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564 (2017), involving grandparent custody.  Maryland’s Court of Appeals refined the definitions and standards of “exceptional circumstances” and “unfitness” that a third party must prove to obtain custody.  For related topics, please check out these articles linked above.

In 2018, the Court of Special Appeals applied De Facto parent law to step-parents in Kpetigo v. Kpetigo, 238 Md.App. 561 (2018).

And, in its 2020 decision E.N. v. T.R., (Court of Special Appeals, August 25, 2020), the Court of Special Appeals answered questions involving parent consent to establishing a De Facto parent relationship and confirmed its open door for multi-parent families (so, families with more than 2 legal parents).

So What?

Third party custody is a complex, rapidly evolving area of family law.  Likely by necessity due to the infinite shapes of families and people acting as parents.  These dynamic changes mean that third parties have gained significant rights with each new appellate case over a fairly short period of time. 

Which is an interesting contrast to the state of parent-parent custody legal developments…considering that Maryland seems unable to pass a custody statute and parent-parent custody case law is relatively unchanging.

However, there are still unresolved questions, like:

  • Is there a limit on the number of legally recognized parents a child can have?
  • Once recognized as a legal parent, can legal parenthood be terminated?  How?
  • What about child support?
  • How far can parental constitutional rights be pushed?

I discuss these and others in “What is The Future of Third Party Custody?”.

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.

You can follow her for discussion, news, and developments in Maryland family law on LinkedInFacebookInstagramTwitterLindsayParvis.com, and YouTube.

Concluding three years of contentious family law litigation led by law firm and the court’s dismissal of a protective order against the client’s husband, Darin Rumer stepped in as an assertive advocate and quickly mediated a new separation agreement successfully modifying child custody.

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 invited Nurit Coombe. She has been a licensed real estate agent since 2001. During that time, she has won countless awards and currently holds the distinction of owning the #1 RE/MAX Team in the state of Maryland and the Central Atlantic Region. Her team is also the #1 Real Estate Team (among all companies) in Montgomery County and North Bethesda. Nurit has built a reputation for offering precise market knowledge, technological expertise, and bringing boundless energy and tactical negotiation skills to everything she works on.

In this episode, Nurit Coombe answers the following questions and more:

  1. The effects of the pandemic on the real estate market
  2. What can buyers expect with the lack of inventory in the market 
  3. What is geo-fencing? How can it help the buyers?
  4. How things will look in Real Estate, post pandemic?

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.

Hospital system agrees to pay United States $345 Million to settle claims of Medicare fraud brought by CFO-Turned-Whistleblower.

Read more here.

Maryland – The 2021 edition of Maryland, Super Lawyers magazine recently named 15 Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A. attorneys to its annual Maryland, Super Lawyers lists.

The Maryland, attorneys who made this year’s Super Lawyers list, including their primary practice areas as identified by Super Lawyers, are:

GREENBELT, MD –

  • Andrew E. Greenwald –  Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

  • Burt M. Kahn – Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

  • Jay P. Holland – Labor & Employment

  • Steven M. Pavsner – Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

  • Timothy F. Maloney – Gen Litigation 

  • ROCKVILLE, MD – 

  • David M. Bulitt – Family Law

  • Jeffrey N. Greenblatt – Family Law

  • Patrick W. Dragga – Family Law 

  • P. Lindsay Parvis – Family Law 

  • Anne E. Grover – Family Law

  • Jeffrey Hannon – Family Law 

RISING STAR  – 

  • Maritza Carmona – Civil Litigation: Plaintiff 

  • Alyse Prawde – Civil Litigation: Plaintiff 

  • Rama Taib-Lopez – Family Law

  • Christopher R. Castellano – Family Law

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

Veronica Nannis; vnannis@jgllaw.com

Sarah Chu; schu@jgllaw.com

Jay Holland; jholland@jgllaw.com

Phone: 301-220-2200

FRAUD CASE BROUGHT BY WHISTLEBLOWER NURSES RESULTS IN SETTLEMENT IN HOME HEALTH CASE

Doctor’s Choice agrees to pay $5.8M to settle allegations it fraudulently increased patient visits and engaged in a kickback scheme with doctors.

GREENBELT, MD – November 23, 2020Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. represents three healthcare workers who blew the whistle on Florida-based home health agency Doctor’s Choice Home Care, Inc. (“Doctor’s Choice”) resulting in a $5.8 million settlement. The False Claims Act (qui tam) settlement resolves allegations that the company fraudulently increased patient visits in order to increase Medicare payments and that it paid illegal kickbacks for doctor referrals, as detailed in the Department of Justice’s announcement.     

The whistleblowers are experienced healthcare providers, including registered nurse, Sara Billings, and physical therapist, Marina Eschoyez-Quiroga, both who worked for Doctor’s Choice primarily out of Naples, FL. The complaint recounted how the whistleblowers first reported their concerns internally to management, to no avail, before reporting to the Department of Justice, which undertook a thorough, four-year investigation before intervening and settling.

The lawsuit is unsealed for the public, after the United States filed a notice of intervention and dismissal. Its investigation and intervention focused on allegations that Doctor’s Choice increased the number of services rendered to Medicare patients in order to avoid lower payments. The complaint alleged that Doctor’s Choice automatically inflated patient visits without medical necessity or the independent medical judgment of the on-the-ground medical personnel.

“Providing medically unnecessary services places patients at risk and jeopardizes millions of taxpayer dollars,” said Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Tampa Division Michael McPherson in the Department of Justice release. “This settlement highlights the FBI’s commitment to protect the integrity of the federally funded healthcare system.”

The whistleblowers are represented by Veronica Nannis, Sarah Chu and Jay Holland, who prosecute civil health care fraud cases nationwide. Medicare laws require all patient care to be reasonable and medically necessary. Unreasonably increasing patient services in order to obtain higher Medicare reimbursement violates Medicare laws and the False Claim Act. “Civil healthcare fraud settlements like these are important to maintain the integrity of our healthcare system as well as taxpayer dollars. When healthcare providers improperly inflate medically unnecessary services for financial gain, this puts patients at risk and increases health care costs,” explained Sarah Chu.

Veronica Nannis, lead counsel for the whistleblowers, touted their courage, “the front-line healthcare workers who blew the whistle here are uniquely brave. While many knew of this scheme, only three were courageous enough to come forward. They protected their patients though it meant sticking their necks out as whistleblowers.” Jay Holland added, “our clients are leading by example. They hope this encourages others to report fraud, especially the kind that affects patient care or risks patient health or safety.”

The case is captioned U.S. ex rel. Billings et al. v. Doctor’s Choice Home Care, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-3112, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The Relators are represented by a team of experienced whistleblower attorneys including Veronica Nannis, Sarah Chu and Jay Holland of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake and local counsel Audrey Schechter of Law Offices of Audrey Hildes Schechter. The federal government’s team was led by Charles Harden, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Middle District of Florida, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI.

 

Jay Holland is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, and is Chair of the Firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Departments. His False Claims Act cases have resulted in recoveries of over $600 Million for the United States. His recent publications include articles for The National Law Journal, Trial Magazine, DC Trial Lawyer, and the Maryland State Bar Association Employment Law Deskbook. He can be reached at jholland@jgllaw.com

Sarah Chu is an associate at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake. She works in the qui tam practice, representing whistleblowers nationwide in sealed investigations and unsealed litigation under the federal and state False Claims Acts. She can be reached at schu@jgllaw.com

Veronica Nannis is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake and serves as the Chair of the Firm’s Civil Litigation Department. She litigates qui tam cases and consumer class actions nationwide, typically involving kickbacks and other fraud. A Super Lawyer’s Rising Star in DC and Maryland for several years, she was awarded the MAJ Trial Lawyer of the Year Award in 2011. Past publications include those for Law 360, the ABA Health e-Source, and The Daily Record. She can be reached at vnannis@jgllaw.com

 

Disclaimer: The law discussed in this blog was current when published.  However, changes have occurred to the law since and you can read about those here.  If you have questions about these changes and how they affect you and your family, please contact the attorney Lindsay Parvis LParvis@jgllaw.com for a consultation.

2021 will see 5 major changes to the child support guidelines, one of which will allow the Court to decline to award any child support if certain circumstances exist.  Child support law current through September 30, 2021 does not entitle a Court to decline to order child support.  These changes will be found in Family Law Article §12-202(b) and apply to cases filed on and after October 1, 2021*.

Circumstances under the new law allowing a no support order are:

  • The child lives with the parent from whom support is sought and the parent is contributing to the child’s expenses
  • The parent is unemployed, has no resources to pay child support, and is incarcerated and expected to remain so for the remaining time support would be paid (but also see 2020 updates about incarcerated obligors/payors[LP1] )
  • The parent is institutionalized in a psychiatric care facility and expected to remain so for the remaining time support would be paid
  • The parent is totally and permanently disabled, unable to obtain or maintain employment, and has no income other than SSI or SSCI benefits (in which case, there is usually a dependent benefit paid for the child’s support)
  • The parent is unable to obtain or maintain employment in the foreseeable future due to criminal detainment, hospitalization or rehab

Interestingly, the new law also provides that a parent meeting or ceasing to meet the criteria above shall be a material change in circumstance to modify the child support award.  This recognizes that the qualifying circumstances above may not be permanent and support could be awarded in future.

However, the law doesn’t tell us how this material change language fits with Family Law Article §12-202(b), that changes to the child support guidelines law are not, themselves alone, a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support.  So, if the circumstances above exist on September 30, 2021, can a parent receive a termination or suspension of child support based upon the new law?  Hard to say for sure.  But if a parent does not make a request of the court, a parent won’t know.

Why did this come about?  Because Maryland is legally required to review its child support guidelines every 4 years and perhaps because research has shown that child support orders for too high an amount in fact result in less child support actually being paid.  So, by comparison, requiring payment of child support when a parent has no legally justifiable ability to pay may result in less child support being paid over the child’s lifetime.  Also, certain of the circumstances are in keeping with federal law.

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

  • Don’t forget Family Law Article §12-104.1 if the basis is incarceration.  Because these two statutes are different but both apply to incarcerated payors obligors.  Compare the two when incarceration is justification for a suspension or termination of support.  (See article about 2020 Updates Incarcerated Obligors/Payors[LP2] )
  • Consider material change if requesting a modification after October 1, 2021*.  Per Maryland law, changes to the child support guidelines law are not, themselves alone, a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support (Maryland Code, Family Law Article §12-202(b)).  Other material changes are needed to obtain a modification of child support.  Make sure those changes exist and are stated in your Court filings.  And if not and helpful to your position, point that out to the Court.
  • Use the 2021 law changes as a reference point for the Court.  If a termination or suspension of child support is requested before October 1, 2021 based on circumstances that would allow a no support order under the new law, refer the Court to the new law if helpful to your position.
  • Don’t delay.  If these circumstances exist now, they may justify a modification, suspension, or termination of child support now.  Plus, modification can only be granted retroactive to the date a request is filed with the court*.

* 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 October 1, 2021 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 2021:

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.

Disclaimer: The law discussed in this blog was current when published.  However, changes have occurred to the law since and you can read about those here.  If you have questions about these changes and how they affect you and your family, please contact the attorney Lindsay Parvis LParvis@jgllaw.com for a consultation.

2021 will see 5 major changes to the child support guidelines, one of which introduces new Maryland law on the self-support reserve for low income parents for cases filed on and after October 1, 2021*.

The self-support reserve recognizes that parents at the lowest income levels require a basic amount of money to live on before being able to pay child support.  The self-support reserve standardizes this calculation, while still allowing deviation in appropriate cases.

Laws current through September 30, 2021 allow the Court to use its discretion in calculating child support now at these lowest income levels.  Either in the suggested amounts of $20-150 per month for combined parent monthly incomes of $100-$1,200 or to deviate from the guidelines (so, adjust) if applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.

Why did this come about?  Because Maryland is legally required to review its child support guidelines every 4 years and because research has shown that child support orders for too high an amount in fact result in less child support actually being paid.  Standardizing realistic child support at lower income levels should encourage payment of more support overall and simplify the calculation of child support.  Reviews of low income child support cases showed that, despite the Court’s discretion and suggested lower support amounts, in more than 40% of cases awards were higher than $150 per month.

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

  • Calculate and compare!  If requesting child support in a lower income case, calculate and compare the 2020 to the 2021 guidelines.
  • Be aware of filing deadlines*.  The October 1, 2021 changes apply to cases filed on and after October 1, 2021.  Not cases filed before.
  • Use the 2021 guidelines as a reference point for the Court.  If child support is discretionary or downward deviation/reduction requested, show the Court the 2021 guidelines as a reference point for the appropriate amount of support.
  • Consider retroactivity.  When weighing filing deadlines, consider that child support and changes to child support can only be awarded dating back to the date the request is filed with the court (Family Law Article §12-104)*.
  • Consider material change if requesting a modification after October 1, 2021*.  Per Maryland law, changes to the child support guidelines law are not, themselves alone, a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support (Maryland Code, Family Law Article §12-202(b)).  Other material changes are needed to obtain a modification of child support.  Make sure those changes exist and are stated in your Court filings.  And if not and helpful to your position, point that out to the Court.

* 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 October 1, 2021 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 2021:

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.

Disclaimer: The law discussed in this blog was current when published.  However, changes have occurred to the law since and you can read about those here.  If you have questions about these changes and how they affect you and your family, please contact the attorney Lindsay Parvis LParvis@jgllaw.com for a consultation.

2021 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 October 1, 2021 for cases filed on and after that date*, Maryland will see changes to its child support definitions statute (Family Law Article §12-201) 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) 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 October 1, 2021 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 2021:

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.

Disclaimer: The law discussed in this blog was current when published.  However, changes have occurred to the law since and you can read about those here.  If you have questions about these changes and how they affect you and your family, please contact the attorney Lindsay Parvis LParvis@jgllaw.com for a consultation.

October 1, 2020 saw updates to the law (Family Law Article §12-104.1) allowing suspension of child support when the payor (the person required to pay child support; also called “obligor”) is sentenced to incarceration for 180 consecutive calendar days or more.  This is a change from 18 consecutive months to 180 consecutive days.  This applies to cases filed on and after October 1, 2020.

The law’s other requirements remain the same:

  • The payor is not on work release and has insufficient funds to pay support; and,
  • The payor didn’t commit the crime intending to be incarcerated or of becoming impoverished (so, unable to pay support).

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

  • There’s not much law on this topic.  Have Wills v. Jones, 340 Md. 480 (1995) (predating §12-104.1) and Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) on your radar.
  • Look ahead.  To 2021’s changes to Family Law Article §12-202, introducing the “no support order” when a parent is incarcerated and expected to remain so for the remaining time required to pay child support.  See the link below for discussion about no support orders.
  • If OCSE doesn’t address suspension, file a motion.  Because child support and arrears do not automatically suspend or get adjusted.
  • Retroactivity.  Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) is an interesting discussion of 2 exceptions to retroactivity limitations:  1)  when a law’s changes apply to circumstances existing before the law went into effect (contrary to the material change exclusion of Family Law Article §12-202(b)) and 2) suspension of support prior to the date of filing (contrary to the limitation of Family Law Article §12-104).  These exceptions may apply to this newest update to Family Law Article §12-104.1.

For other articles in this series about updates to the child support guidelines law in 2020 and 2021:

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.

Disclaimer: The law discussed in this blog was current when published.  However, changes have occurred to the law since and you can read about those here.  If you have questions about these changes and how they affect you and your family, please contact the attorney Lindsay Parvis LParvis@jgllaw.com for a consultation.

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 going into effect October 1, 2021.

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:

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.

Subscribe