Fuquen v. Everitt

• Decision Date: 05 March 2019
• Docket Number: No. 313,313
• Parties: LUIS FUQUEN v. TRINA EVERITT
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

LUIS FUQUEN v. TRINA EVERITT

No. 313

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2018

March 5, 2019

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County

Case No. C-02-FM-15-000375

UNREPORTED

Meredith, Reed, Sharer, J. Frederick (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Meredith, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Luis Fuquen ("Father"), appellant, appeals the judgment entered after a custody trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The appellee is Trina Everitt ("Mother"). By order docketed March 22, 2018, the court awarded sole legal custody, as well as primary physical custody, of the parties' two minor children to Mother. The court's order also provided for Father to pay child support, made a marital property award, and ordered Father to pay a portion of Mother's attorney's fees. Father's brief states:

There are now three primary questions before this court:

1) whether a parent's exercise of the constitutionally protected choice to dissolve the marital relationship provides sufficient state trigger to regulate and censor intimate and expressive close family parent-child speech, association, and worship;

2) whether TC's [the trial court's] viewpoint regarding the best interest of the children sufficiently justifies that regulation and censorship of intimate and expressive close family parent-child speech, association, and worship; and

3) whether the absence of a neutral and impartial decision-maker deprived the litigants of a fair hearing?

We perceive no reversible error, and affirm the judgments of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Father and Mother were married on April 25, 2002. Two children were born to the parties: R., on March 29, 2002, and K., on July 7, 2004. The parties separated in June 2014 when Mother took the children and left the marital home. The court found that their separation had been uninterrupted since September 2014. The court made the following findings:

The parties' marriage was turbulent before it began. Their first wedding date was canceled, and they didn't talk for months after that, despite the fact that [Mother] was already pregnant with their first child. Eventually they did marry and went on to have their second [child]. Their children are the subject, in part, of the instant controversy. Their marriage was never good, and according to [Father] their ever-present tension came to a head when he realized the parties' life goals were not the same. This realization came about as the result of the parties' attempts to purchase a franchise for [Mother] to run. In the course of their discussions, [Mother] indicated that she would like to eventually retire and stay home. [Father] was appalled by her lack of ambition.

Throughout 2013 the tension in their household had been rising. During this time, [Father] was commuting to Virginia to work. He arrived home late in the evenings and was exhausted on weekends. For weeks and sometimes months, [Father] would refuse to communicate with [Mother] or the children ("the silent treatment") as the result of some perceived infraction. [Father] raised the issue of divorce with [Mother] on several occasions throughout that year. To add to this stress, in the Fall of 2013, [Father] learned that his employment was being terminated.

Finally, as the result of an incident on Thanksgiving of 2013, [Mother] came to the realization that she and the children could no longer live with [Father]. Pets were an integral part of the parties' household, and they recently had added a kitten to their menagerie. At dinner, [Father] became angry with their youngest child for being disrespectful to [Mother's] mother. As punishment to the child, [Father] announced that the kitten would have to go and threw the kitten out of the house into the cold night, causing everyone at the house, especially the children, great emotional distress. [Footnote 1 explains that the kitten was rescued by Mother's father.] After that, [Father] did not speak to [Mother] or the children for months, including over the Christmas holidays.

At some point thereafter, [Mother] began to make active plans to move out of the home with the children, which she eventually did in June 2014. [Father] testified that he was shocked and emotionally devastated by this move. He threatened suicide and eventually ended up in Sheppard Pratt for one week. Following his release from Shep[p]ard Pratt in August 2014, he went to his sister's home in Chicago and underwent two weeks of intense out-patient therapy. When he returned to Maryland in September of 2014, [Mother] agreed that he could sleep on the couch in the family home, and he did so temporarily. Despite having an offer of employment in Washington, DC, [Father] accepted a position in New Jersey and relocated there, with [Mother's] help, in September, 2014. Although he had been terminated from this new job by Thanksgiving of 2014, [Father] continued living in New Jersey until July of 2016. [Father] had no contact with the children during the first three weeks after he moved. Thereafter until July, 2016, the vast majority of [Father's] contact with them was electronic. A Consent Order Regarding Final Custody and Visitation Determination was entered on June 22, 2015 providing the parties with joint legal custody and [Mother] with primary physical custody and final decision-making authority. Under that Order [Father] had alternating Sunday afternoon visits, two non-consecutive summer weeks and certain holiday visits. A subsequent Consent Order Regarding Custody further defining the parties' joint legal custody was entered on November 19, 2015.

On that same date, another Consent Order was entered which provided, inter alia, that the parties would continue to rent the marital home to a third party tenant and that [Mother] should be "entitled to retain as her sole property any and all rental income that exceeds the cost of [the] mortgage . . .[.]" As previously indicated, in July of 2016, [Father] began coming back to Maryland, and he eventually moved back into the marital home located at [redacted] Lane, Annapolis, Maryland 21409. Until that point, the net third party rental income had been $600.00 per month. Pursuant to the terms of the November 19, 2015 Consent Order, those funds were paid to [Mother]. [Mother] has not received any rental income since [Father] resumed residing in the marital home. On November 29, 2017, [Mother] filed a Petition for Contempt and Motion to Enforce Consent Order due to [Father's] alleged failure to follow the dictates of the November 19, 2015 Consent Order. During his occupancy, [Father] claims he made a number of repairs to the property, for which he now seeks contribution from [Mother].

Once [Father] returned to live in Maryland, he became hyper-vigilant of the [children] and hyper-critical of [Mother's] parenting. He decided that the [children] were malnourished and suffered from eating disorders. He insisted that they be evaluated for eating disorders, a demand to which [Mother] acceded. Eventually, [R.] was diagnosed with an eating disorder for which she has been treated. [Father] introduced the [children] to calorie counting and suggested at one point that [R.]'s "ins and outs" be weighed. Much to [R.]'s chagrin, he contacted her recreational soccer coach and suggested she not exert herself due to her eating disorder. He has also, to the [children's] great embarrassment, advised school personnel of certain alleged physical and psychological conditions of the [children] and their mother, all without the input or approval of [Mother] or the [children's] health care providers. To the detriment of the children, [Father] verbally attacks and berates any professional who disagrees with his unconventional theories of treatment, on at least one occasion causing a scene in the pediatrician's office in front of both children.

Through text and telephone calls, [Father] has attempted to manipulate the [children] by threatening to again move away or texting them cryptic goodbyes, leaving them to conclude he is suicidal, if they do not live with him or behave the way he wishes. At one point, [Father] went to [Mother's] home and demanded they give him their puppy Simon in apparent retaliation for [Mother] hiring a lawyer to represent her in the divorce case. This came after he had already gotten rid of three of their dogs, their chickens and at least one cat.

[Father] repeatedly shared details of the parties' case and the court process with the [children] and is apparently unable to see the impropriety of doing so, at one point stating, "As a parent I have clearly stated the facts to the kids and they are in the know because they need to know how screwed up is the system." In contrast, [Mother] expressed regret and remorse for the few times she improperly involved the children in the parties' disputes. Aside from deriding the court system to the [children], [Father] repeatedly blames [Mother] for everything to them. He tells them that [Mother] is mentally and physically ill and is taking a "cocktail" of drugs. He also tells them that [Mother's] depression is genetic and that they too are likely to suffer from mental illness in the future. He has unjustifiably reported [Mother] to Child Protective Services, leaving the [children] to fear they would be put in foster care. The Child Protective Services investigation resulted in a recommendation to [Father] that he stop putting the children in the middle of the parties' divorce. Several mental health professionals testified at trial that [Father] was not receptive to their suggestions that he stop threatening and manipulating the children. The experts also made it clear that while [Father] has inflicted significant psychological damage on the

...