Azizova v. Suleymanov
Decision Date | 21 November 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 2338, Sept. Term, 2018,2338, Sept. Term, 2018 |
Parties | Natella AZIZOVA v. Muzaffar SULEYMANOV |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Dmitri A. Chernov (Galina Rakityanskaya, Rockville, MD), on the brief, for Appellant.
Argued by: Elizabeth Krukova (National Capital Legal Services, Vienna, VA), on the brief, for Appellee.
Panel: Leahy, Wells, Lynne A. Battaglia (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
This appeal stems from an order of a trial judge sitting in the Circuit Court for Washington County, who awarded appellee, Muzaffar Suleymanov, primary physical custody of the child he fathered with appellant, Natella Azizova, who asks us to reverse this determination.1
For the reasons that follow, we shall hold that the trial judge abused her discretion in awarding Mr. Suleymanov primary physical custody of the child and shall vacate and remand the matter for a new hearing.
It is well established that custody determinations are to be made by a careful examination of the specific facts of each individual case; the "fact finder is called upon to evaluate the child's life chances in each of the homes competing for custody and then to predict with whom the child will be better off in the future." Montgomery Cnty. v. Sanders , 38 Md. App. 406, 419, 381 A.2d 1154 (1977). Courts possess wide discretion in determining questions concerning the welfare of children, the authority of which "clearly empowers courts applying the best interests standard to consider any evidence which bears on a child's physical or emotional well-being." Bienenfeld v. Bennett-White , 91 Md. App. 488, 503–04, 605 A.2d 172, cert. denied , 327 Md. 625, 612 A.2d 256 (1992). Although courts are not limited to a list of factors in applying the best interest standard in each individual case, the cases of the Court of Appeals and of this Court, beginning with Montgomery County Department of Social Services v. Sanders , 38 Md. App. 406, 381 A.2d 1154 (1977) and Taylor v. Taylor , 306 Md. 290, 508 A.2d 964 (1986), have set forth a non-exhaustive delineation of factors that a court must consider when making custody determinations, which have been consolidated in Fader's Maryland Family Law , a veritable compendium of domestic relations law:
Cynthia Callahan & Thomas C. Ries, Fader's Maryland Family Law § 5-3(a), at 5-9 to 5-11 (6th ed. 2016) (footnotes omitted). Fader's Maryland Family Law also delineates other factors that courts are encouraged to consider in custody determinations:
Id. at § 5-3(b), at 5-11 to 5-12 (footnote omitted).
Unequivocally, the test with respect to custody determinations begins and ends with what is in the best interest of the child. Boswell v. Boswell , 352 Md. 204, 236, 721 A.2d 662 (1998). In between, a trial judge must determine whether a particular issue related to a parent presents harm to the health and welfare of a child or affects the child's development, and whether there is a nexus between the parental issue and any adverse impact on the child's overall well-being. Id. at 235–38, 721 A.2d 662 ; see also Whaley v. Whaley , 61 Ohio App.2d 111, 399 N.E.2d 1270 (1978).
The Court of Appeals and this Court have time and time again affirmed custody determinations where the trial judge embarked upon a thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned analysis congruent with the various custody factors. See Santo v. Santo , 448 Md. 620, 646, 141 A.3d 74 (2016) ) ; Reichert v. Hornbeck , 210 Md. App. 282, 308, 63 A.3d 76 (2013) (); Hughes v. Hughes , 80 Md. App. 216, 234 n.5, 560 A.2d 1145 (1989) ( ).
In situations, however, where a trial judge, while assessing a particular factor, has been guided by their personal beliefs in fashioning an outcome rather than by the evidence, we and our colleagues on the Court of Appeals have vacated that decision.
In 1998, the Court of Appeals, in Boswell v. Boswell , 352 Md. 204, 721 A.2d 662 (1998), for example, reaffirmed the notion that a trial judge, applying the best interest standard to a visitation determination, must not let their personal beliefs or biases pertaining to a parent's lifestyle choice interfere in custodial decision-making, but rather, should only consider how such a choice adversely impacts the best interest of a child. In Boswell , the trial judge, without request from either party, placed limitations on the children's visitation with their father based upon his cohabitating with a same-sex partner, reasoning:
Id. at 212, 721 A.2d 662 (emphasis removed) (alterations in original). In addressing the father, the trial judge continued:
[T]here may come a time when you would elect to have someone else stay at the home with you, perhaps a female companion or another male companion, but my order is that the children are not to visit you under those circumstances. So if it means taking them to some other place, some neutral place, then that's the Order of this Court, and that's a strict order [until] it is clear to me that we'll have no situation where you have a live-in companion.
Id. (emphasis removed). The visitation order entered by the trial judge prohibited any overnight visitation and visitation with the children in the presence of "anyone having homosexual tendencies or such persuasions, male or female, or with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kadish v. Kadish
...but are instead vested with wide discretion in making decisions concerning the best interests of children. Azizova v. Suleymanov , 243 Md. App. 340, 345, 220 A.3d 389 (2019) ; see also Taylor , 306 Md. at 303, 508 A.2d 964 (in noting "transcendent importance" of child's best interests, stat......
-
Gizzo v. Gerstman
...erroneous if there is competent or material evidence in the record to support the court's conclusion.’ " Azizova v. Suleymanov , 243 Md. App. 340, 372, 220 A.3d 389 (2019) (quoting Lemley v. Lemley , 109 Md. App. 620, 628, 675 A.2d 596 (1996) ), cert. denied , 467 Md. 693, 226 A.3d 236, 202......
- Macias v. Summit Mgmt., Inc.
-
Jones v. Jones
...history of any efforts by one parent "to alienate or interfere with the child's relationship with the other parent." Azizova v. Suleymanov, 243 Md. App. 340, 345-47 (2019), cert. denied, 467 Md. 693 (2020); accord Montgomery Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Sanders, 38 Md. App. 406, 420 (1977);......
-
Review of the Year 2018-2019 in Family Law: Jurisdiction and Choice of Law Issues Abound
...Olivieri v. Olivieri, 96 N.Y.S.3d 126 (App. Div. 2019). 156. Boyko v. Boyko, 96 N.Y.S.3d 139 (App. Div. 2019). 157. Azizova v. Suleymanov, 220 A.3d 389 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019). 158. Wynnycky v. Kozel, 834 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2019). Published in Family Law Quarterly, Volume 53, Number......