The civil contempt process can be used to gain compliance from either the custodial parent or the non-custodial parent. However for sake of this discussion I will assume that a custodial parent is allegedly violating a non custodial parents visitation rights.

The process is initiated by a petition by the non custodial parent asking that the custodial parent be held in contempt. Unless the petition is frivolous on its face, the judge will issue a show cause order. The contents of this order are prescribed by Rule 15-206 . A summons, order and petition are served on the custodial parent who is commanded to come to court and defend against the claim for contempt.

The custodial parent is given an opportunity to file a written response and to appear at an evidentiary hearing on the allegations. At the hearing both parties will be given an opportunity to present evidence and arguments. Following the hearing the Master will prepare in writing recommendations which shall include his findings. He will also include a proposed order. Either party may file exceptions to the Master's findings and recommendations. The dispute then goes to a judge who must make an independent decision giving substantial deference to the Master's findings of fact. If an order is entered, there must be an opportunity for the custodial parent to purge the contempt. In other words, the custodial parent will be given a direct order by the court. If the custodial parent complies the threat of incarceration is lifted.

Mr. Duckworth played a trump card to defend against a claim for arrearages brought by his former wife. He asserted a claim that had long been a matter of suspicion. He wasn't the biological father of his 14 year old daughter! He actually convinced the trial court to order a paternity test. When the test supported his defense, the court dismissed the claim for unpaid child support and granted his motion to terminate child support.

On appeal by mother, the Maryland Court of Appeals refused to accept Mr. Duckworth's belated efforts to shuck off fatherhood because of financial convenience. The court held that the Circuit Court had erred because it failed to consider the best interest of the child. It went further in enumerating a host of legal principle that precluded his long delayed renunciation of fatherhood. However, setting aside issues that may be unique to Mr. Duckworth, this opinion confirms the principle that before entering any order for paternity testing the court must first determine that it is in the best interest of the child.

In most contested domestic relations cases, the court will hold a scheduling conference which will be set 30-45 days after a complaint and answer are filed. These scheduling conferences are held in the court house on Fridays. The Howard County family law coordinator presides. A scheduling order will be generated that may include referral to professional service providers such as parenting classes or mediation; appointment of an attorney for a child or children, custody evaluation, Master's Hearing date and setting discovery deadlines.

The family law coordinator must also determine the complexity to the case. More complex cases may require a longer discovery schedule. Cases that meet the criteria for complexity may be eligible for extension of discovery deadlines.

The differentiated case management plan for Howard County also provides for settlement conferences that will usually be conducted by a retired judge. These are set after discovery has been completed. If a case does not settle, the parties will go directly to case the management office to schedule a trial date on the merits.

Many defined benefit pension plans allow the participant to take a reduced monthly benefit in exchange for providing continued benefits to a spouse following the death of the participant. Known as the right of survivorship, this is typical of many pension plans including federal, state and local government plans. Because so many residents in the Howard County, Anne Arundel County, and Baltimore County area are government employees, this is an important issue frequently encountered by central Maryland Divorce Lawyers. The parties can share the reduction in the benefits pro rata or have the spouse who will benefit bear the full reduction in monthly benefits. It is usually advisable to resolve the issue in a clear and unambiguous fashion.

In the absence of a Separation Agreement by the parties, this is one of many issues that are left to the discretion of the judge based on all the facts and circumstances of the case. Ordinarily if you enter into a Separation Agreement you are compromising important issues in order to avoid litigation. It is not usually a preferred result to enter into a Separation Agreement that is unclear on this or any other point and end up in litigation over what the parties intended.

Recent decisions have clearly established that parents have a fundamental constitution right to raise their children. Unless it can be established that a parent is unfit or there are "exceptional" or "extraordinary" circumstances, the parent will be awarded custody rather than a third party. Grandparents, relatives and persons who might be regarded as de facto parents have no rights in this legal calculation. There is a heavy presumption in favor of the parent as opposed to all others. These decisions also have undercut grandparent visitation rights established in Section 9-102 of the Family Law Article by Maryland General Assembly. You will find a discussion of this issue in a prior posting on this site.

In Green vs. Green, the child's aunt and uncle won the right to continued physical custody against the mother who had sought to modify an existing custody order. They had originally obtained physical custody in a consent order entered into by mother and father. Mother filed a motion to modify, requesting that she be awarded physical custody following her completion of a substance abuse rehabilitation program. The trial court found that mother was a fit and proper parent. However, the court expressed concern about her continued use of alcohol even in moderation. The court perceived a danger of relapse and concluded that this might be legally sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances sufficient to deny her constitutional right to custody. However on appeal, aunt and uncle prevailed not based on the finding of "exceptional circumstances but because of father's participation in both the original consent decree and his opposition to any modification.

The takeaway is that Grandparents and other non parents seeking visitation and/or custody should establish an alliance with and active participation of a parent whenever possible

Sometime when both parties have been fighting, a careful comparison is required of what has occurred with the definition of Domestic Violence under Section 4-501 Family Law Article. In the context of the question posed on AVVO, any act that causes serious bodily harm, places a person in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or that constitutes assault under the criminal code can constitute Domestic Violence.

Let me offer two simple rules of thumb. As your grandmother told you, "two wrongs don't make a right." In other words, the fact that one person is a victim of Domestic Violence does not mean that that same person did not also commit Domestic Violence. The second is that "size [sometimes] matters." If the parties in a fight consist of a healthy 200 pound male and a 97 pound female, this may (but not necessarily) be significant on the issue of who was and who was not "in fear of imminent serious bodily harm". For an overview of Domestic Violence proceedings you may review my prior post on the subject.