Ball v. Tate
| Docket Number | 1687-2022 |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2023 |
| Parties | Andrew F. Ball v. Lisa Lorraine Tate |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND [*]
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. 02-C-13-179554
Graeff, Reed Kenney (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
This case comes as an appeal from a custody and child support case concerning K.B., the minor biological daughter of Appellant Andrew F. Ball ("Father") and Appellee Lisa Lorraine Tate ("Mother") .
Over the last decade, the parties have been involved in multiple contentious disputes over K.B. resulting in the filing of countless motions to modify custody and child support, as well as contempt motions by both parties. The latest case and current appeal stem from Mother and K.B., who is now sixteen years old, moving out of Maryland to Virginia. As a result Father petitioned for full custody-arguing that the move to Virginia was done in secret and without his input. He further argues that it has substantially affected his ability to exercise his custodial visitation with K.B. and therefore has resulted in a material change in circumstances that necessitates a modification in custody. Additionally, due to various job losses since 2020, Father also sought to have his weekly child support reduced to reflect his change of income.
The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County denied both of Father's motions and now Father presents the following questions for our review:
For the reasons discussed below we conclude that trial court did not err and thus shall affirm.
The parties were married in Massachusetts in 2001 and resided there until their divorce in 2010. While here, Appellant Husband attended Harvard Business School. They share one child together who was born in September of 2006. After their divorce in 2012, Father moved to Connecticut. In 2013 Mother, who has been K.B.'s primary custodian, moved to Maryland where they both resided until the summer of 2022 when they moved to Virginia. Father has since remarried and has another child with his current wife.
After Mother and K.B. relocated to Maryland, Father registered the Massachusetts orders in Maryland and then filed a complaint to modify custody, requesting an expedited pedente lite hearing, and other relief. In this complaint, Father sought full custody or, in the alternative, shared custody with substantially more visitation with K.B..
In April 2014, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County modified the physical and legal custody order [hereinafter "2014 Order"] to account for the fact that the prior custodial arrangement necessarily needed to factor in how K.B. would visit Father in Connecticut. Notably, the 2014 Order established a detailed visitation schedule on how Father would see K.B. The order also stated, "that if there comes a time the parties reside in the same state it may constitute a change in circumstances which would warrant a review of the access schedule in this Order[.]" (emphasis added). Additionally, the order stated that Father would be responsible for all travel costs related to visitation and gave Mother tie-breaking authority over K.B.'s schooling with the condition that if she elected private school for K.B., she would be responsible for all costs. Due to Father's income increasing substantially since the original 2010 order, the 2014 Order also increased Father's child support obligation from $531 weekly to $731 weekly.[1]
The following year, the parties went back to court to resolve their disagreement over the interpretation and implementation of the 2014 Order. The "2015 Order" (Supplemental Child Support and Custody Order) specified how Father would execute his two custodial visits each month-one weekend would be in Connecticut and the other (optional) weekend would be in Maryland. For K.B.'s visits to Connecticut each month, the Order required Mother to drive K.B. to BWI airport and Father to pay for the flights. For Father's visits to Maryland, Father would drive four and a half hours down and book a hotel for the weekend. Additionally, Father was entitled to have K.B. for six weeks broken down into two-week blocks each summer. The 2015 Order further required Father to submit his preferred summer weeks to Mother each year by April 15th.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties deviated from the agreed upon plan and suspended Maryland visits. For the Connecticut visits, each party agreed to drive two hours and meet halfway once a month so Father could exercise visitation with K.B. in Connecticut. From March 2020 through May 2021, Father traveled to visit K.B. in Maryland two or three times.[2]
In September of 2020, Father was laid off from his job of eight years at an assets management company where he was making around $400,000 a year. Over the next couple of years, Father worked different jobs-from earning $16,000 from his own company[3] to working for a company called Enfusion where he made over $85,000 in a three-month span[4] to his current job at Catylex where he reported making a significantly lower salary of $100,000 annually.[5] He was given a ten-month severance package that allowed him to continue paying his usual child support until February 2022.[6] On November 3rd, 2021, Father motioned for a reduction in child support due to a decrease in income and also asked that Mother be ordered to contribute towards the transportation costs required for him to exercise his custodial rights.[7]
At the time Father lost his job, both parents were talking about K.B. attending either Chatham Hall or The Gunston School-a private school off the eastern shore.[8] Once Mother learned of Father's job loss, she stated she was not sure she could afford the tuition at either Gunston or Chatham Hall so she exercised her tie-breaking authority to enroll K.B. in a Christian preparatory school in Roanoke, Virginia. After learning of Mother's plans to move to Roanoke, Virginia with K.B., Father filed a complaint on February 11th, 2021 for child custody and modification to child support and to enjoin Mother from moving K.B. out of Maryland until the merits hearing where Father was seeking primary custody.
In this complaint, Father alleged that Ms. Tate "refused to discuss her plan, in advance, with the Plaintiff, and, in fact, lied to Plaintiff as to her intentions, and took other actions. . . to move the minor child without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent." He pointed out that Mother knew he was considering moving his family to Maryland at that time and that he told Mother as much before she listed her home on the market or purchased her Virginia home.[9] Finally, the complaint also alleged that K.B. had excessive absences from school that were not related to illness and that the pending move to Virginia would negatively impact his access to her.
Both parties attended a show-cause hearing on April 21, 2021 and the presiding magistrate denied Father's petition and found that Mother was not in violation or contempt of any legal custody order. The magistrate stated Mother has the constitutional right to relocate and to pick K.B.'s schools. The magistrate also found that Mother's communications with Father were sufficient and that Father was provided with enough opportunities to provide input.
On April 16th and 20th, Mother also filed motions for contempt against Father and for a Pedente Lite Modification of Visitation. The contempt petition was based on Father failing to follow the 2014 Order-which required that he submit which summer weeks he wanted by April 15th each year and as of the date of the motion (April 20th) those dates were not provided. She also listed that in previous years, the dates were also delinquent.
Mother's motion to modify visitation states it was to "avoid any ideas of 'contempt' due to the material change of circumstances as a result of relocation to attend High School." Mother also argued that a change in visitation was necessary due to Father not planning or requesting his visitation with K.B. in a timely manner. Mother further emphasized that, due to K.B.'s academic and social needs changing, the 2014 visitation schedule was no longer appropriate. At the show-cause hearing on June 11th, 2021, the magistrate found that Father violated the visitation order by not providing his visitation schedule, however, denied Mother's petition because the violation did not amount to contempt.
In the summer of 2021, K.B., resisted going to Connecticut for the summer because she wanted to participate in school activities and sports, as well as potentially get a job. [10]Kayla testified at trial, that while she wanted to spend time with her dad and little sister in the summer, she didn't want to spend the whole six weeks there and wanted more flexibility in when she would visit her dad throughout the year.[11] Due to issues regarding K.B. not going to Connecticut in accordance with the custody order and the parties having different interpretations of the court order, a consent order clarifying summer visitation was agreed to on July 20th, 2021. This order states that Father will have custody of K.B. from "June 28th, 2021 to July 17th, 2021 and then again on July 25th, 2021 to August 15th, 2021." [12]
On June 28th, 2021, a pedente lite hearing was held regarding Father's request that K.B. be forced...
To continue reading
Request your trial