Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-30-2024
Case Style:
W.S. v. S.M.
Case Number: C-02-FM-17-001179
Judge: Not Available
Court: Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Annapolis, Maryland divorce lawyers represented husband and wife in a marriage dissolution action.
The parties are the parents to ten-year-old R. and twelve-year-old T. In February of 2018, the court entered an Order that granted the parties joint legal and shared physical custody of the children, set forth an alternating weekly access schedule, and ordered Father's payment of $80.00 in monthly child support to Mother.
In June of 2022, Father filed a motion to modify child custody. Therein, he asserted that Mother had "unilaterally withdr[awn]" the children from their schools in Anne Arundel County and relocated to Baltimore County. He asserted that Mother's move constituted a material change in circumstance and requested that the court grant him sole legal and physical custody of the children. In response, Mother agreed that there had been several material changes in circumstances since the 2018 Order, including her relocation to Baltimore County and several incidents of domestic violence by Father "against various girlfriends[,]" and Mother, too, sought sole legal and physical custody of the children.
In October of 2023, the court held a two-day bench trial where it heard from both parties, several witnesses on behalf of each party, and a custody evaluator assigned by the court. Father testified to being a master plumber and the sole owner of a plumbing business.
4
He asserted that in 2022, the business grossed nearly $280,000. He confirmed that his highest-paid employee earned up to $55 an hour. When asked how much he paid himself, Father responded that he "normally [doesn't] pay [him]self" and that he "just keep[s] money in the bank and [doesn't] spend it." He introduced 2021 and 2022 personal income tax returns indicating earnings of $52,432 and $42,432 in those years, respectively. Further, the court heard testimony that less than two months before trial, Father purchased a six-bedroom home for $665,000, for which he pays a $4,681.14 monthly mortgage.
At the conclusion of trial, the court decided that it would hold the matter sub curia and announce its ruling on November 21, 2023. However, before the court could do so, on November 2, Mother filed a "Motion to Re-Open Merits Trial," asserting that following trial, Father was arrested while the children were in his care ("Motion to Re-Open"). She maintained that after being notified that "the children had been absent from school for two days[,]" she learned that Father had been incarcerated and charged with, among other charges, first and second-degree assault against his former girlfriend.[3]
On November 21, 2023, the court held an additional hearing, where it heard from both parties and conducted an in-camera interview of the children. The court noted that T. seemed "guarded" and that R. disclosed that she did "not always feel safe" at Father's house and that "there were several times when dad does something bad and they [the children] call the cops[.]" The court determined that it was not then prepared to issue a
5
decision "in light of [its] conversations with the children," and entered a pendente lite custody order granting Mother sole legal and primary physical custody of the parties' minor children.
Finally, on December 21, 2023, the court delivered a 25-page oral opinion modifying child custody. The court awarded sole legal and primary physical custody to Mother and set forth a three-phase visitation schedule for Father, providing supervised visitation in the first two phases and unsupervised visitation in the final phase:
1. Phase One: This phase shall last twelve (12) weeks from the date of the entry of this order. During Phase One, [Father] shall have supervised parenting time with the minor children on the first three Saturdays of every month commencing on the date of the docketing of the court's order from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. [Mother] shall have parenting time with the children on the fourth Saturday of every month (and on any 5th Saturday). [Father's] parenting time shall be supervised by [Father's Father], [Father's Aunt M.], another person mutually agreed upon by the Parties, or a professional visitation supervisor. [Father] shall bear the cost, if any, for the visitation supervisor. During Phase One, [Father] and the children shall participate in family therapy which shall commence within thirty (30) days of the Court's order and shall occur with a minimum frequency of one session every two weeks. Any cost associated with the therapy not covered by insurance shall be paid by [Father]. Participation in therapy at the designated frequency is a prerequisite to completion of Phase One.
2. Phase Two: This phase shall last twelve (12) weeks and immediately follow completion of Phase One. During Phase Two, [Father] shall have supervised parenting time with the minor children on the first three Saturdays of the month from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Saturday at 8:00 p.m. [Father's] visitation with the children shall be supervised by [Father's Father], [Father's Aunt M.], or another person mutually agreed upon by the Parties. During Phase Two, [Father] and the children shall continue to participate in family therapy which shall occur with a minimum frequency of one session every two weeks. Any cost associated with the therapy not covered by insurance shall be paid by [Father]. Participation in therapy at the designated frequency is a prerequisite to the completion of Phase Two.
3. Phase Three: This phase shall begin after completion of Phases One and Two. During Phase Three, [Father] shall have unsupervised access with the minor children every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.
Further, the court found Father's "testimony regarding his income not credible." Specifically, the court noted Father's $4,681.14 monthly mortgage, asserting that "[i]t strains credulity to believe that a person making $4,369 would qualify for a mortgage with a payment of $4,681.14[.]"[4] Instead, the court concluded that "given that the evidence shows that the highest-paid employee at [Father's] business, makes $55 an hour, the [c]ourt finds it appropriate to impute that[5] amount of income to [Father] for full-time employment[,]"[6] and it imputed a $9,526 monthly income to Father. Using the child support guidelines, the court ordered Father's payment of $1,862 in monthly child support to Mother.
In addition to child support, the circuit court awarded Mother $10,000 in attorney's fees, to be paid by Father in equal monthly installments of $1,000 per month. The court found that Father was in a "superior financial position," that his income is "three times that of [Mother,]" and that his business "had substantial income, which was sufficient to allow him to purchase a $625,000 home."[7] By contrast, noted the court, Mother was unable to afford a larger home, lived in a two-bedroom trailer, and had "substantial" needs. The court also found that Father was substantially justified in bringing the action, and that Mother was substantially justified in defending it.
Father timely noted this appeal. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: