Snead v. Snead
| Decision Date | 06 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 869,869 |
| Parties | SAMUEL DAVID SNEAD v. DAISY ANNA SNEAD |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Fader, C.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.
Samuel Snead ("Father"), the appellant, filed a petition to modify custody and a petition to modify child support against Anna Snead1 ("Mother"), the appellee, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Mother then filed a counter-petition to modify visitation and legal custody. Following a hearing, the court awarded sole legal custody of the parties' two minor children to Mother; reduced Father's visitation time; denied Father's requests to modify custody and child support; and ordered Father to pay Mother's attorneys' fees. Father now challenges each of those rulings, arguing that the court acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion in reaching its decision. We conclude that the court did not err or abuse its discretion, and will therefore affirm.
Additionally, Mother filed a motion in this Court seeking reimbursement from Father for the cost of printing an appendix to her brief. We will grant in part that motion and order that all costs be assessed to the appellant, as provided in Rules 8-607 and 8-608.
Mother and Father were married in 2009. Their two children together were born in 2012 and 2015.
In December 2017, Father filed for divorce. Around the same time, the parties entered into a Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which Mother received primary physical custody of the children, and Father received "dinner visits" with the children two nights per week and visitation every other Saturday andSunday during the day. The parties also agreed to share joint legal custody. In addition, the parties agreed that Father would pay $2,161 per month for child support and maintain health insurance for the benefit of the children. The parties subsequently amended the agreement to provide Father overnight visitation on his weekends with the children.
In June 2018, the circuit court entered a Judgment of Absolute Divorce, which incorporated, but did not merge, the parties' separation agreement and the amendment to that agreement. Accordingly, the court awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children; Mother primary physical custody; Father visitation as set forth in the agreements; and Mother child support of $2,161 per month.
Father subsequently filed a motion to modify custody and child support. In May 2019, the circuit court entered a consent order in which the parties agreed that Father's dinner visits would be reduced to one night per week. The parties also agreed that if Father were to move to Anne Arundel County: (1) his visitation schedule would increase to having the children Thursday to Sunday, every other week, and for two hours every other Wednesday; and (2) Father's child support obligation would be reduced to $1,600 per month. The parties also filed a Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, which showed Mother's actual income at $9,158 per month and Father's actual income at $10,048 per month. Based on the parties' incomes, the recommended child support obligation according to the guidelines would have been $2,715 per month.2
In June 2019, Father filed motions to modify custody and child support, both of which are at issue in this appeal. In his motion to modify custody, Father asked for access to the children from Thursday to Monday every other week and for dinner visits once per week. In his motion to modify child support, Father asked that his support obligation be reduced to reflect a decrease in his income and an increase in Mother's income.
In June 2020, Mother filed a counter-petition for modification of custody. Mother asked that the circuit court: (1) strike the provision from the parties' consent order granting Father increased access upon moving to Anne Arundel County; (2) grant sole legal custody of the children to Mother; (3) maintain the parties' current access schedule; and (4) award reasonable attorneys' fees to Mother.
At the ensuing hearing, Father testified that he had filed his petitions to modify custody and child support because of "several instances perpetrated by [Mother], one of which was calling the police to [his] residence when [he] had the children at the aquarium." Father testified that, during another incident, a babysitter Father had hired for the children had quit because Mother had yelled at her. Father also complained that Mother "was not performing the duties of agreement," such as "not doing Facetime calls on a regular basis"; that he had "difficulty with exchanges" due to "things being changed last moment"; that, on multiple occasions, Mother had been intoxicated during drop-offs; that one of thechildren had suffered multiple injuries while interacting with Mother's dogs; and that "many different parties" had been involved in the care of the children.
Father testified that he had moved to Anne Arundel County and switched jobs to be closer to the children and have a more flexible schedule. He added that he had the financial burden of all health care expenses for the children, which totaled $612 per month, and that his change in employment had caused his yearly salary to decrease from $120,700 to $112,500 and his health insurance costs to increase. Regarding his involvement in the children's day-to-day activities, Father testified that he was a paid member of the PTA at the children's school; that he had been appointed by the school board to the Citizen Advisory Committee; and that he volunteered at the children's school.
Mother testified that she had tried to accommodate Father in facilitating the current visitation schedule but that Father had a history of forfeiting or rescheduling his visitation time and submitting last-minute requests to change the location of exchanges. Mother testified that, during one exchange, Father became angry and berated her in the presence of the children. Mother added that Father had exhibited similar behavior at other exchanges; that Father had "mental health" issues that affected his ability to care for the children over extended periods of time; and that Father had been hospitalized for mental health reasons on "six or seven" occasions, most recently in 2017.
Mother testified that she handled virtually all the children's school and health-related needs and that Father had not expressed any desire to be involved in those matters. Mother testified that she had repeatedly tried to reach out to Father via email to "find acompromise and co-parent together" but that Father had consistently responded with "disparaging language" and "false accusations." Copies of such emails were admitted into evidence.
Regarding the allegations made by Father, Mother testified that there had been an incident with her dog where one of the children got "a small little scrape on his face" and that Father had responded to the incident by calling Animal Control. Mother testified that there had not been any other incidents, but that, if there had been, she would have gotten rid of the dog. Mother stated that there was no verbal or written agreement regarding Facetime, adding that she and the children had attempted to Facetime with Father but that he had often refused. Regarding financial issues, Mother testified that: (1) her yearly salary was $140,000, which was the same salary she had when the court entered the consent order in May 2019; and (2) she had incurred $15,935.35 in attorneys' fees in defending against Father's petitions and bringing her own. Mother introduced documentation supporting her claim for attorneys' fees.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that there had been "a lot of changes, material changes in circumstances that occurred after the parties' agreement," including "a series of emails" showing "a lot of animosity there, particularly on the part of [Father] toward [Mother]." The court also noted that one of the children had been "nipped" by a dog and that Father had moved to Anne Arundel County and taken a new job.
The court then went on to discuss the evidence as it pertained to the petitions for modification of custody:
To continue reading
Request your trial