J.B. v. L.B.
| Decision Date | 06 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1309-2021 |
| Parties | J.B. v. L.B. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No CAD15-02990
Arthur, Tang, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.
In 2016, the parties to this case agreed to the entry of a consent order, under which they shared joint legal custody of their child, and the mother received primary physical custody of the child.
Five years later, the father moved for a modification of custody. At an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County determined that the father failed to meet his burden of showing a material change in circumstances that might warrant a modification of custody.
The father has appealed, contending that the court improperly restricted his testimony and that the court erred in finding that no material change in circumstances had occurred. The father also contends that the court abused its discretion by making revisions to the access schedule for winter break and spring break from the child's school. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we reject each of these challenges and affirm the order denying the father's request for modification of custody.
J.B. ("Father") and L.B. ("Mother") married each other in June 2011. They are the parents of one child, O., born in March 2014. At the time of the child's birth, the two parents lived together in Laurel. They separated in December 2014, when Mother moved to Columbia. Mother filed a complaint for divorce in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Father counterclaimed for divorce. Each parent requested sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the child.
In January 2016, the two parties reached "an agreement resolving all issues arising from their marriage to one another[.]" Both parties signed a consent order setting forth the terms of their agreement.[1] The circuit court approved the consent order and entered it on February 4, 2016. A few weeks later, the court entered a judgment of absolute divorce, which ratified the consent order and stated that the court would retain jurisdiction as necessary to effectuate the terms of the consent order.
Under the consent order, the parties shared joint legal custody of their child, "with [Mother] having the final decision-making authority in the event of an impasse." The consent order stated that, "[i]n the event of an impasse, and prior to [Mother] exercising her final decision-making authority," the parties agreed to participate in a mediation session if requested by either party. The parties agreed that Mother would continue to provide health insurance for the child. The parties agreed "to discuss the minor child's participation in extracurricular activities, including . . . sports, art, religious training or other specialized instruction" before either parent would register the child to participate in those activities. Both parties expressed their intent to continue "residing within the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area, for the foreseeable future, so as to facilitate" the shared physical custody schedule.
The consent order granted Mother primary physical custody and established a schedule for Father's access with the child. The child would spend every Monday overnight with Father and every other weekend with Father. Father would pick up the child from school or other daytime activity in the afternoons and transport the child to school or daytime activity in the mornings. On weeks when the child would not be staying with Father for the upcoming weekend, Father had the option to pick up the child on Wednesday afternoons and return the child to Mother's home the same evening. During the summer, each parent was entitled to have the child for two non-consecutive weeks of vacation. Generally, the parties agreed to "follow the Howard County Public School calendar to determine holidays and days off from school, unless the schedule at the minor child's school/daytime activity is different."
The consent order set forth a "holiday access schedule" which "supersedes the regular access schedule" where applicable. Under the holiday access schedule, the child would spend Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend, Independence Day weekend, Labor Day weekend, and the Thanksgiving holiday and weekend with Father. The child would spend President's Day weekend, Memorial Day weekend, and Columbus Day weekend with Mother. The parties agreed that each parent would provide the other parent with reasonable access to the child on the child's birthday; that Mother would provide reasonable access to the child on Father's Day and Father's birthday; and that Father would provide reasonable access to the child on Mother's Day and Mother's birthday.
The holiday access schedule further stated that the child would be with Mother for Christmas every year, from the morning of December 24th through the afternoon of December 28th. The parties would have the child on alternating years for New Year's Eve, from the afternoon of December 31st through the evening of January 2nd.
The access schedule included a paragraph titled "Winter Break/Spring Break." It stated:
The access schedule ended with a paragraph titled "Special Events." It stated: "Each party shall cooperate and consent to make the minor child available for special events at the request of the other party, said consent not to be unreasonably withheld, upon 30 days['] notice and with make-up visitation to be provided on the next available weekend, or weekday, whichever may be appropriate."
In early 2019, when the child was five years old, Mother informed Father that she was moving to Greenbelt. Mother enrolled the child for kindergarten at Friends Community School, a private school affiliated with the Quaker religion.
At that time, Father moved to modify the access schedule, asking to extend his weekly Monday overnight access to include Tuesday overnight access. Mother opposed that request and moved to modify the access schedule by eliminating Father's Monday overnight access during the school year. In November 2019, after a hearing before a family magistrate, the circuit court denied the competing motions to change the access schedule.
In January 2020, Father, representing himself, filed two motions with the title "Motion to Modify Consent Order." In the first motion, Father asked for an order requiring the parents to communicate with each other through a particular website and mobile app. In the second motion, Father asked for an order allowing the parents to designate a cohabitant to drop off or pick up the child for daytime activities. Mother opposed both motions, asserting that they failed to allege any facts that might warrant relief.
Also in January 2020, Mother moved for modification of legal custody. Mother alleged that the parties were no longer able to communicate effectively with one another to reach shared decisions regarding the child's welfare. Mother asked that she be awarded sole legal custody of the child.
In May 2020, Mother filed a motion for contempt. Mother asserted that Friends Community School had implemented a remote learning format in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mother asserted that, in the exercise of her tie-breaking authority, she had decided that all remote learning should take place at her home. Mother alleged that Father had refused to transport the child to Mother's home on Tuesday mornings after his Monday overnight visits. Father, through counsel, opposed the motion for contempt. Father asserted that the child participates in remote learning from Father's home and argued that the consent order did not require him to transport the child to Mother's home for school.
Separately, Father, through counsel, filed a motion titled "Amended Motion to Modify Legal Custody." In that motion, Father alleged that Mother had made various parenting decisions that were contrary to the child's best interests. Father asked the court to grant him sole legal custody of the child.
Shortly before the scheduled hearing on Mother's pending motions, the circuit court issued an order denying or dismissing Father's "Motion for Modification." The order stated that Father's "motion, on its face, fail[ed] to state a material change in circumstances entitling [Father] to relief." The order did not specify which of Father's various motions had been denied.
On November 9, 2020, a family magistrate held a hearing on Mother's motion to modify legal custody and motion for contempt. The two parents testified about, among other things, their disagreements over the location of the child's remote learning. The magistrate recommended that the court issue an order requiring all remote learning to take place at Mother's home and requiring Father to transport the child to Mother's home on each day of remote learning for the child's school. The magistrate recommended that the court deny Mother's request for sole legal custody and dismiss her motion for contempt, without prejudice.
Father filed exceptions to the magistrate's recommendations. Separately, Father requested a hearing on his "Amended Motion to Modify Legal Custody." The circuit court issued an order dismissing Father's exceptions and denying his request for a hearing. The order stated that the hearing request was "moot" because the court had "previously dismissed" his amended motion for modification of...
To continue reading
Request your trial