Published on:

By

As we had previously reported in our March 1, 2010 blog the Maryland Attorney General issued an opinion in February 2010 that states Maryland should recognize same sex marriages performed legally in other states as valid marriages in Maryland. However, the bill to allow same sex couples to marry in Maryland did not pass in the legislature this term. This has left Maryland Courts in limbo with how to handle same sex couples who file for divorce. Local news station, WTOP, reported on Friday, June 24, 2011 that a local Prince Georges County same sex couple was recently denied a divorce based on “the unnatural circumstances of their marriage.” The Judge specifically stated in his opinion “to recognize the alleged marriage would be contrary to the public policy of Maryland.” The Prince Georges County couple has filed an appeal with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

As reported there have been three instances in Maryland where a same sex couple has filed for the divorce, and only one in Anne Arundel County has been granted. This leaves same sex couples with the options of filing in Maryland with an unknown outcome, moving to another state that recognizes same sex marriages to establish residency and file, or staying married. Attorneys and same sex couples will await the Court of Special Appeals ruling on the Prince George’s County case for guidance on the subject.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Most family law matters, such as divorce proceedings, and custody proceedings, do not involve the Maryland criminal system, or involve any imminent punishment such as jail time. However, when a non-paying child support obligor (parent who is supposed to be paying child support) is brought to court after the child support obligee (parent who is supposed to be receiving child support) files a Petition for Contempt, that obligor may be sentenced to jail time. Because this obligor faces jail time at this contempt proceeding, the proceeding, while civil in nature borderlines a criminal proceeding because of the punishment that can be imposed. While criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney have the option of obtaining a public defender, civil defendants in most cases do not. Therefore, it has often been a question whether these non paying child support obligors are entitled to an attorney due to the threat and/or possibility of incarceration?

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Many clients come to me unclear as to their rights to their marital home. If your home is owned and was purchased during your marriage, it is a marital home. Martial property is defined as “the property, however titled, acquired by 1 or both parties during the marriage.” Maryland Code, Family Law § 8-201(3). Therefore, absent a protective order, discussed in our August 2009 blog, no one has the authority to make their spouse leave the home. If your home is rented and both names are on the lease then no one has superior rights over the other and therefore, no one has the authority to make their spouse leave the rented home.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As a follow up on our June 10, 2011 blog more regarding adultery and introducing a new relationship to your child(ren), we thought it may be best to touch on dating during your divorce proceedings. Typically, we advise clients to refrain from dating while their divorce is pending and we do so for several reasons.

First, as explained in the previous blog, it could be considered adultery to be dating while married if your spouse can prove the elements necessary to establish adultery. Although parties may be separated while waiting for a divorce, they are still technically married and therefore, it is still considered adultery, which is both a ground for divorce and a crime in the State of Maryland.

Second, it may not be what is in the best interest of your child(ren) and if you are not putting your child(ren)’s best interest first then you may be facing an uphill battle if custody is an issue in your matter. While dating may not offend a Judge, it will not be helpful to your case if the Judge feels that your children are being negatively affected by your dating life and you have still chosen to partake in it. Even if the individual you are dating is wonderful and wonderful to your child(ren), your children are still going through a major adjustment period and to have one or possibly two new individuals then become a part of their homes and time with their parents may not be what is best. Additionally, while your children may not overtly be exhibiting problems as a result of your pending divorce, it is best to be able to focus all of your attention on them during your time with them to be aware of any issues they may be experiencing.

Third, it is always better to do the right thing, even if your spouse is not, while a divorce is pending. Many clients are frustrated by their spouse’s continued misbehavior and feel that it will continue to go unnoticed. If and when it is noticed and considered by a Judge, then it is much better to be on the “clean hands” side of that dispute. Two wrongs never make a right.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

A bill has been proposed in Massachusetts that would prevent parents from having sex in their home until their divorce is final, Fox News Reported on May 19, 2011. More specifically, the bill would prevent divorcing parents from “conducting a dating or sexual relationship within the home” until their divorce is final. Those who favor the bill have stated that the bill is meant to shield children from unnecessary problems or domestic violence while their parents divorce is underway. Those who oppose the bill say it is infringing on parents rights.

Currently, not only is adultery a ground for divorce in Maryland, it is still codified as a crime in the Maryland Criminal Code. In our experience, it is wise to consult a mental health professional before introducing your child to a new relationship, especially while a divorce is pending. The effects of a divorce on children vary from child to child, however a mental health professional can provide some guidance and advice based on the child’s developmental, emotional, and physical age.

A Maryland court will not likely ban such behavior if asked to do so by a litigant during their divorce proceedings, but will often consider a parents behavior and the effects of that behavior on the child(ren) when looking at what is in the best interest of the child(ren) in a custody determination.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

A divorce or separation is much more than two people parting ways, as there are often many other items that arose out of the marriage that must be resolved in order for parties to legally part ways. These items can be addressed in a separation agreement or are eventually resolved in divorce litigation. It is important to consider each of the following items at the beginning stages of pursuing a Maryland divorce:
• Child Custody – If you and your spouse have children, then custody of the children will need to be decided. Custody is comprised of two parts in Maryland, legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody involves decisions regarding the child involving health, education and religion. Physical custody is the time spent with each parent. Both forms of custody can be shared by parents, or awarded to only one parent. For more information see our September 10, 2010 blog.
• Child Access Schedule – Not only does custody of the children need to be decided but also when each parent will have access with the children. You need to consider the school year, summer vacation, holidays and school breaks. Also many parents designate how their children will communicate with the other parents when not in their care • Child Support-Child support is awarded in many cases to account for a difference in time sharing of the children, or a difference in income of the parties. For more information on child support, see our September 11, 2009 blog
• Dependency Exemption for Child(ren)- You need to consider who will designate the children for purposes of the tax dependency. Will you and your spouse alternate, each take one child, etc?
• Health Insurance – You need to consider who will cover the children on their health insurance. Also, if you are currently covered by your spouses insurance, or covering your spouse, will you continue to do so until your divorce is final?
• Uninsured Medical Expenses for Kids-Typically parties may divide this evenly or in proportion to their incomes. If one parent is bearing the whole expense, and it is significant, it will be used for child support calculations.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As we have previously discussed in our blogs, many family law matters are decided outside of Court, with the assistance of attorneys. However, what happens when the parties, who have employed attorneys to assist in their divorce litigation, decide to take matters into their own hands? As the Maryland Daily Record reported on June 2, 2011, the Baltimore law firm of Tydings and Rosenberg is facing such a situation right now. The firm’s client, Julie Zorzit, after employing the firm to do a substantial amount of work, met privately with her husband, John Zorzit, and waived all rights for her attorney’s fees to be paid by her husband. The firm is now seeking the fees, as Ms. Zorzit can not afford to pay for the work that has already been done, but Mr. Zorzit can. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County denied the firms request for the fees, the case was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, and a decision is awaited.

Many clients inquire as to their rights to have their spouse pay for their attorney fees in their divorce matter. The Maryland Code, Family Law Article § 7-107 provides that “at any point in a proceeding under this title, the court may order either party to pay to the other party an amount for the reasonable and necessary expense of prosecuting or defending the proceeding….[however] before ordering the payment, the court shall consider: (1) the financial resources and financial needs of both parties; and (2) whether there was substantial justification for prosecuting or defending the proceeding.” Parties should not rely on the possibility of such an award when employing counsel, as in our experience, attorney fees are often denied. However, there are cases where attorney fees are absolutely justified and the Court makes an appropriate award.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As many of our clients are aware, going through a divorce process once is enough, let alone having to do it all over again. As the New York Times reported on May 30, 2011 , a New York man, Mr. Steven Simkin, is seeking to revise the divorce settlement him and his wife, Ms. Laura Blank reached in 2006, as the funds he was awarded were lost as a casualty to the Madoff disaster. As we have previously discussed, many parties reach a separation agreement or settlement agreement outside of court which resolves their marital issues.
When the parties reached their settlement in 2006, Ms. Blank chose to keep her funds out of the Madoff account, while Mr. Simkin chose to keep his with Mr. Madoff. Mr. Simkin argues that the settlement agreement, aka a contract, should be voided as the funds with Mr. Madoff did not even exist at the time of the divorce settlement. His argument relies on the “doctrine of “mutual mistake,” a well-established principle that allows for the cancellation of contracts, including divorce agreements, when both parties are innocently mistaken about an essential term. The case is currently with New York’s highest court and it is said that they are divided, as are many attorneys on the issue. The case could not only affect New York law, but the way that marital settlement agreements are handled throughout the country. Those who are against the revision of the agreement believe that it would allow for do-overs whenever an agreement does not go as planned. Many enter into these divorce agreements with no idea what the future holds, but it is a way of making a clean break from your spouse and moving forward.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As a family law practitioner I have represented a number of petitioners and respondents in protective order hearings throughout the state of Maryland. Unfortunately, the purpose and intent of a protective order is often misinterpreted and misused by the litigants. The purpose of the domestic violence statute as defined by Maryland case law is to protect and aid victims of domestic violence by providing a quick and effective remedy and to prevent further harm to the victim. It is not intended to produce pendente lite orders relating to custody, support, and marital property that are effective for the duration of the Protective Order. Oftentimes, Petitioners attempt to use this necessary and important statute to do just what it was not meant to do – obtain custody of a child in common with the respondent.

I recently represented a respondent in a Final Protective Order hearing , in which the petitioner used the staute to attept to gain custody of their chid. In that case the petitioner alleged an assault upon him by the respondent that resulted in their infant child being bounced off the bed, where she was laying at the time, and landing on the floor. The police were called to the residence three times over the course of less than 24 hours and no one was arrested or left the residence. Ironically, the respondent fled the state the next day with the assistance of a domestic violence program due to continuing abuse by the petitioner upon her. Nevertheless, the petitioner filed a Temporary Protective Order, which was granted and awarded him custody of the parties infant child. My client was already out of the state (with the child) and once she was served with the Order did appear for the Final Protective Order Hearing. Once the Petitioner put on his case, the evidence in my opinion, was abundantly clear that even in the light most favorable to the petitioner, that there had been at most a mutual scuffle which was instigated by the petitioner and that petitioner’s only motivation in filing the protective order was to obtain custody of the child. This is a complete misuse of the domestic violence statute, i.e. protective order statute. At the conclusion of the petitioner’s case I made a Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner’s Protective Order as he had not met his burden of proof establishing by clear and convincing evidence that abuse had occurred. The Court agreed that even in the light most favorable to the petitioner, he had not met his burden and dismissed the Protective Order without the need for my client to put on her case. In this particular situation, the Court was keenly aware of the purpose and intent of the domestic violence statute and did not grant the Final Order.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Currently, Maryland law regarding divorce involves two different waiting periods in order to obtain a no fault divorce. The one year waiting period applies when BOTH parties are seeking the divorce, i.e. the separation is MUTUAL and voluntary. The two year waiting period applies when only one of the two parties would like the divorce. We had previously discussed this distinction in our October 2010 blog. The Maryland legislature has passed a bill eliminating the two year waiting period, and now no fault divorces can proceed with only a one year separation, eliminating the need for the Court to consider if one or both parties is seeking the divorce for grounds purposes. The Maryland Daily Record reported on April 17, 2011 that this new legislation will go into effect October 1, 2011. The chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Bobby Zirkin believes that the two year separation period is only extending volatile situations and allowing parties to drag the litigation out in order to bargain for those items they want in the divorce. He also believes that this is a step in the right direction in his effort to reduce the waiting period to only six months, as we discussed in our February 17, 2011 blog .

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

I recently defended a modification of child support case (the father was seeking a decrease) in the Circuit Court for Howard County and after a hearing the Court determined there was not a material change in circumstance to warrant a modification of the child support currently being paid to my client.

I believe the concept of a ‘material change in circumstance’ can often be misinterpreted to mean ANY change in circumstance, and that is not the case. In this particular situation the parties divorced late 2009, and child support and non-modifiable alimony were calculated and agreed upon. At the time of divorce, the parties agreed to leave the alimony payment outside of the child support calculation and agreed to a slightly higher amount of child support as they believed it was in the children’s best interest. Less than a year later, the father (ex-husband) filed to modify child support, seeking a lower amount, alleging that he changed jobs and was earning less (about 5% less), his ex-wife was earning a small income, and alimony should now be incorporated into the child support guideline worksheet.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The legislation pending to allow same-sex couples to marry is scheduled for a final vote this Friday, March 11, 2011 in the Maryland House of Delegates as reported by the Baltimore Sun. The legislation has already passed the Maryland Senate and the House Judiciary Committee. The passage of the bill, if signed by the Governor, would allow same-sex couples to marry in the State of Maryland. The passage of this bill would not afford same-sex couples who chose to marry more rights than those of their heterosexual counterparts. The bill would solely extend the civil protections already afforded to married couples to same-sex couples who chose to marry.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The same sex marriage bill passed at the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, March 4, 2011 by a 12-10 vote as the Baltimore Sun reports. This means that the bill will move to the full House of Delegates for debate, which is scheduled to start as early as this Tuesday, March 8, 2011. As we previously blogged, on February 25, 2011 the bill if passed into law would allow same sex couples to wed. Delegates who had previously opposed the bill have expressed that they will vote to pass the bill as they believe it should ultimately be up to the voters to decide. As the Sun reports, if the bill passes in the House of Delegates, “Gov. Martin O’Malley has said he will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk. Opponents could then gather the roughly 55,000 signatures needed to petition the new law to referendum, where voters in the 2012 presidential election will decide whether to repeal it or leave it on the books.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

There is currently legislation pending before the Maryland General Assembly that would create a rebuttable presumption that joint legal and physical custody to each parent for equal periods of time is in the best interest of the child in certain custody proceedings. You can find the pending legislation at the Maryland General Assembly’s website. This bill would require parties in custody proceedings to overcome the statutory presumption that joint custody is in the child’s best interest. This would mean parties would enter a custody hearing on equal footing with respect to having the child in their shared custody and the Judge would have to find that one of the parties met their burden of overcoming the presumption in order to award a party sole physical or legal custody. The presumption aligns with the rights of parents without a custody order, in that parents have equal rights to their children, without a custody order stating otherwise. However, there is currently a great debate among family law attorneys over this pending legislation. Those who propose the bill support fathers’ rights, believe that parents may fight less over custody if the presumption is in place, and believe this takes such an important decision out of the court’s hands. Those who oppose the bill believe that the parties who have to take their custody case to trial should not be the ones who have a presumption of joint custody because they can not get along. Further, they do not believe that this decision should be taken out of the court’s hands, that the other best interest factors will not be considered if the presumption is in place, that those who are awarded joint custody who can not communicate will be back in court again and again, and that the current system is working well.

As we discussed in our October 23, 2009 blog, the current standard that is used when determining custody of a child is the “best interest standard.” This is a standard in which Judges consider a number of factors such as the parents fitness, relationship of child and parents, children’s current environment, ability to maintain natural family relationships, who has been the primary care giver, wishes of child in some circumstances, any agreement the parents have made, prior abandonment of a child by a parent, the age and health of the child, and many, many other factors to determine what custody arrangement would be in the best interest of the child.

For more information on custody please contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740 to speak with an experienced family law attorney at Silverman Thompson.

Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

We discussed the pending same-sex marriage legislation in our February 25, 2011 blog. In our blog we touched briefly on the rights of same sex unwed couples with children and thought the topic could use a little further explanation because there are consequences to not having a legal tie to your child(ren).

Typically, when a same sex couple adopts a child, only one of them actually adopts the child from the agency, country, service, because two people without a legal tie to one another are generally not permitted to adopt a child together. Therefore, only one parent in a same sex unwed relationship is deemed to be the legally recognized parent of the child. This means only that “legal parent” can authorize medical treatments, make medical decisions, consult with therapists, obtain emergency care for the child, obtain school records for the child, make decisions regarding the child’s 504 or IEP plan, meet with teachers, etc. For example, the parent who is not legally recognized as the child’s parent cannot authorize the pediatrician to administer inoculations, tests, draw blood, or prescribe medication. This is obviously a challenge for same sex unwed parents who otherwise share in the day to day parenting responsibilities of the child and are working together as a family unit to raise the child. Some of the difficulties can be cured by subsequent adoption proceedings, powers of attorney, and adding names to birth certificates. However, the costs, time and emotion involved are substantial.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information
Maryland Offices:
Downtown Baltimore Office
400 E Pratt St Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Office: (410) 385-2225 Toll Free: (800) 385-2243 Fax: (410) 547-2432 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Baltimore County Office
1 W Pennsylvania Ave #905
Towson, MD 21204
Phone: (410) 494-7100 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Washington, D.C. Office
By Appointment Only
1775 I St NW #1150
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 921-2225 Phone: (202) 539-2444
New York Office
By Appointment Only
40 Exchange Pl #1800
New York, NY 10005
Toll Free: (800) 385-2243
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Silverman | Thompson | Slutkin | White LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design