Crittenden v. Crittenden
| Decision Date | 06 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1963-2021,1964-2021 |
| Parties | ALAN CRITTENDEN v. MARIKO CRITTENDEN |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case Nos C-02-FM-20-001938 & C-02-FM-19-000823
Beachley, Shaw, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Alan Crittenden filed a complaint for divorce in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County from his wife, Mariko Crittenden; she counterclaimed for divorce and related relief, and filed a separate complaint for child support for their two minor children, who live with her in Japan. After several hearings, the circuit court granted Mr. Crittenden a judgment of absolute divorce and ordered him to pay Ms. Crittenden: $1,500 a month in rehabilitative alimony for 42 months; $3,180 in travel expenses for her to attend the hearing on the petitions for divorce and child support; and $10,000 in attorney's fees. The court also awarded Ms. Crittenden a portion of Mr. Crittenden's military disposable retired pay and survivor benefits. In a separate order, the court ordered Mr. Crittenden to pay $3,435 per month in child support for the parties' two children. Mr. Crittenden has appealed both judgments, which we have consolidated. Mr. Crittenden raises the following seven questions on appeal:
For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the circuit court's judgments.
Alan Crittenden enlisted in the United States Marine Corps ("USMC") in 2000 while living in Georgia. The following year he was stationed in Japan where he met Mariko Crittenden. Ms. Crittenden was born and raised in Japan. Her father is a United States citizen; her mother is a Japanese citizen. The two married on January 6, 2004.
The Crittendens' marriage was tumultuous, due in part to several military deployments and their decision to have an "open marriage" that led to infidelity by both parties. The parties' first son was born in October 2011, in California where Mr. Crittenden was stationed at the time. After their first son was born, Ms. Crittenden, who had worked as a waitress, stopped working outside the home. Mr. Crittenden was restationed to Japan where their second son was born in January 2014. Four years later, in May 2018, the parties separated. The following month Mr. Crittenden was transferred to Fort Meade in Maryland; Ms. Crittenden and their two children remained in Japan.[1] At this time, Mr. Crittenden received a written command child support order from the military to pay roughly $1,800 a month to Ms. Crittenden. Mr. Crittenden has not visited his children since his transfer to Fort Meade.
Six months after residing in Maryland, Mr. Crittenden filed a petition for absolute divorce in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County seeking division of the parties' property, sole legal and primary physical custody of the children, and a determination of child support.
Ms. Crittenden filed a motion to dismiss those counts in the divorce petition related to the division of marital property and child custody. Following a virtual hearing on October 3, 2019, the circuit court agreed with Ms. Crittenden that Maryland did not qualify as the children's home state because they have never lived in Maryland and were residing in Japan. Because Japan had not declined to exercise jurisdiction, the circuit court, citing Md. Code Ann. § 9.5-201(a)(1-4) of the Family Law Article ("FL"), held that it did not have jurisdiction. The court issued an order in which it dismissed the child custody and child support counts, but declined to dismiss the marital property count.[2]
In March 2020, Mr. Crittenden retired from the USMC and began work for a cybersecurity company. When Mr. Crittenden retired from the military, the roughly $1,800 a month written command child support order was rescinded. Ms. Crittenden subsequently filed a petition for child support. Following a pendente lite virtual hearing on February 5, 2021, a magistrate recommended that Mr. Crittenden pay a total of $3,630 a month in child support, which included arrearages. Following another virtual hearing on Mr. Crittenden's exceptions, the circuit court issued an order adopting the magistrate's recommendation for pendente lite child support.
Starting on October 19, 2021, the court held a four-day merits hearing on the petitions for absolute divorce and child support. Before the hearing, Ms. Crittenden had filed two motions seeking to attend the hearing remotely, citing concerns over COVID, her unfamiliarity with Maryland, and having three young children at home in her care.[3] Mr. Crittenden opposed both motions. The circuit court denied both of her motions, and Ms. Crittenden appeared in person for the merits hearing.
On January 11, 2022, the court entered a judgment for absolute divorce based on the parties' separation for twelve months. As stated above, the court ordered Mr. Crittenden to pay Ms. Crittenden $1,500 a month in rehabilitative alimony for 42 months; $3,180 for Ms. Crittenden's flight and lodging expenses she incurred in physically attending the divorce/child support hearing in Maryland; $10,000 in attorney's fees; and awarded her a percentage of Mr. Crittenden's military disposable retired pay and survivor benefits. The court also entered an order requiring Mr. Crittenden to pay Ms. Crittenden $3,435 a month in child support.
Mr. Crittenden has timely appealed both judgments. We shall include additional facts as necessary.
In an action tried without a jury, we will not set aside a trial court's factual findings "unless clearly erroneous," giving "due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Md. Rule 8-131(c). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed at trial and we resolve all evidentiary conflicts in their favor. Brault Graham, LLC v. Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos P.C., 211 Md.App. 638, 660 (2013) (citing Dynacorp Ltd. v. Aramtel Ltd., 208 Md.App. 403, 451 (2012)). In contrast, we review whether "the [trial] court's conclusions are 'legally correct' under a de novo standard of review." Nouri v. Dadgar, 245 Md.App. 324, 343 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting L.W. Wolfe Enters. v. Md. Nat'l Golf, 165 Md.App. 339, 344 (2005)).
Mr. Crittenden argues that the circuit court twice violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights when it applied different standards of law to the two parties. Mr. Crittenden argues that the circuit court treated him differently and unfairly when it dismissed that portion of his divorce petition that concerned child support but then allowed Ms. Crittenden's subsequent petition for child support. Mr. Crittenden also argues that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated when the magistrate referred to the parties' "custodial arrangement" in its pendente lite child support recommendation and report because there is no legal custodial order in place. According to Mr. Crittenden, the magistrate's "custodial arrangement" language "effectively codified that [he] has no custodial rights[,]" which "damaged any chance of a fair custodial hearing in the future in any court of law other than the State of Maryland." Ms. Crittenden disagrees with his arguments, as do we. We shall address each argument in turn.
After the court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over custody because Maryland did not qualify as the children's home state, the court dismissed Mr. Crittenden's custody and child support claims. Although Ms. Crittenden did not request dismissal of the child support claim, we presume that the court dismissed both of Mr. Crittenden's custody and child support counts because it viewed those claims as interrelated, i.e. Mr. Crittenden sought custody of the children and a corresponding order that Ms. Crittenden pay child support. After the court's dismissals, Mr. Crittenden's attorney sought clarification of the court's ruling and the following colloquy took place:
This exchange persuades us that Mr. Crittenden acquiesced in the circuit court's dismissal of the child support portion of his divorce petition from which his disparity of treatment argument arises. See In re Nicole B., 410 Md. 33, 64 (2009) ().
In any event, we do not discern any "disparate treatment" by the court that caused harm to Mr. Crittenden.
As to Mr. Crittenden's argument regarding the magistrate's use of the words "custodial arrangement" in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial