Wilson v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 30 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 519,519 |
| Parties | SUZANNE WILSON v. ADAM WILSON |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Case No. 134837-FL
UNREPORTED
Berger, Reed, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Berger, 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.
This case is before us on appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County granting Adam Wilson ("Father"), appellee, primary physical and sole legal custody of the parties' minor child.1 Suzanne Wilson ("Mother"), appellant, presents four questions for our consideration in this appeal, which we have consolidated into the following three questions:
For the reasons explained herein, we shall affirm.
Mother and Father married in 2012. Their daughter, E., was born on June 22, 2013. On March 15, 2016, Father filed a complaint for absolute divorce in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Thereafter, the parties reached an agreement as to custody and entered into a consent custody order on December 28, 2016. The consent order was filed on January 4, 2017.
Pursuant to the consent order, Mother was awarded sole legal custody of E. but was required to seek Father's input "prior to making any major decisions regarding the health, education and religion" of E. The order further provided that Mother was granted primary physical custody of E. At the time the parties entered into the consent order, Mother was in the military training to be a registered nurse, and the order further provided that Mother was permitted to relocate with E. pursuant to military orders. The order provided for Father to have temporary custody of E. if Mother was required to be deployed or attend training at a location that did not allow Mother to bring E. with her. Father's temporary custody would expire upon Mother's return from deployment/training. The order set forth an access schedule for Father and E., including monthly in-person visits and Facetime visits. The order further provided a holiday schedule and required the use of a system known as the Family Wizard system for communication between Mother and Father. At the time the parties entered into the consent order, Mother was anticipating a two-month training period. The order provided that Father would have temporary custody of E. during Mother's upcoming military training.
Shortly after Father filed the initial complaint in the divorce case, Mother filed a domestic violence petition in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The domestic violence case ("the DV case") is not before this Court on appeal. The record of the case on appeal, however, does include references to the DV case, particularly in the context of the circuit court's credibility determinations with respect to Mother. We, therefore, discuss the DV case to the extent it is relevant to this appeal. The circuit court entered a final order in the DV case on May 27, 2016, which was due to expire on May 27, 2017.
In accordance with the consent order, Father was to have temporary custody of E. from January 28 through May 21, 2017, while Mother attended military training. On January 26, 2017, however, Mother informed Father via email that her February training had been cancelled but that the "training in March [wa]s still happening." Mother told Father that she had learned that she would be assigned to Landstuhl, Germany following her training and that she intended to bring E. with her. Mother told Father that he could "still come and get [E.] this Saturday [January 28, 2017] at 1730 as plan[n]ed." Mother told Father that she would pick up E. "either the 21 or 22nd of May" and that she would let Father know when she "got to training what the date will be, just in case there [were] any changes." Indeed, Mother delivered E. to Father on January 28, 2017.
On January 27, 2017, approximately three weeks after the entry of the consent order (and the day before Mother delivered E. to Father), Mother filed a motion requesting that the court extend and modify the prior DV order. The motion was set for a hearing on February 24, 2017. On February 14, 2017, Father filed a motion to modify custody, arguing that the access schedule in the consent order would not be feasible if Mother and E. moved to Germany for approximately four years. Mother was served with the motion to modify custody on or about February 17, 2017.2
On February 19, 2017, after having been served with Father's motion to modify custody, Mother filed an emergency domestic violence petition in Florida, in which Mother alleged that Father had kidnapped E. and that Father was not properly feeding or clothing E. The Florida court issued an ex parte order. Subsequently, the Sheriff removed E. from Father's home and delivered her to Mother. The Florida case was set for a final evidentiary hearing on February 28, 2017.3
Mother failed to appear before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for the February 24, 2017 hearing on her motion to extend and modify the DV order. Father appeared with counsel before Judge Joseph Dugan, Jr., the judge who had been assigned to handle both the divorce case and the DV case pursuant to the circuit court's "One Family One Judge" policy.
Mother did, however, appear at the Montgomery County Circuit Court on the same date to file a pleading in the divorce case titled "Emergency Petition to Modify Custody and Visitation - No Tr[ia]l and No Advance Notice." Mother also filed a petition for contempt on February 24, 2017. On the same day, Mother filed a motion to postpone the divorce case for four years through June 2021. Mother attached a letter and a copy of military orders dated January 23, 2017, which provided that Mother was to report for training to Fort Sam Houston, Texas from X March, 2017 to X May 2017. Mother had blacked out the specific dates of the months.
Mother's emergency motion was referred to Judge Dugan, who held a hearing on the afternoon of February 24, 2017. Mother alleged in her motion that Father had kidnapped E. in the State of Florida. Father did, at that time, have E. with him in Florida, but Father asserted (and the circuit court ultimately agreed) that he properly had custody at that time pursuant to the consent order. Mother attached a copy of the February 19, 2017 Florida ex parte order granting Mother temporary custody based upon her kidnapping allegation. Mother attempted to persuade the court that Father had kidnapped E., but the court did not find Mother to be credible.4 The court concluded that Mother knew that her motion to extend the DV order had been denied earlier that day and that her filing of the "Emergency Petition to Modify Custody and Visitation - No Tr[ia]l and No Advance Notice" constituted an attempted "sneak attack" against Father.
The circuit court denied Mother's emergency motion. The circuit court further denied Mother's motion for postponement, observing that there was "nothing scheduled for a hearing" at that time. The circuit court further ordered that "this matter is not to be set for a hearing unless and until [Mother] files an appropriate motion to modify custody and visitation and served [Father] and his counsel." The court ordered that Mother's petition for contempt for denial of visitation "be set in the normal course upon service of the Petition for Contempt on [Father] and his counsel."
On March 27, 2017, Father filed an emergency petition for contempt, alleging, inter alia, that Mother had falsely accused him of kidnapping E., leading to police involvement in Florida, and further, had failed to allow him visitation and Facetime access. Judge Dugan scheduled a hearing for April 6, 2017 on Father's petition for contempt.
On April 5, 2017, Mother faxed a letter to Judge Dugan requesting a stay because of her military training in Texas. Mother indicated that she would not be available until June of 2018. She attached a letter from her commanding officer, Commander Christopher L. Donaghe. The letter provided that Mother was not authorized to take leave in order to attend court on April 6, 2017. Commander Donaghe further provided that Mother would be assigned to Landst[uh]l, Germany, after the completion of her training in Texas.
Prior to the hearing on April 6, 2017, Judge Dugan, on his own accord, telephoned Commander Donaghe to inquire whether Mother could participate in the hearing via telephone. Judge Dugan explained that he telephoned Commander Donoghe because he "wanted to find out what's going on and [he] want[ed] to find out why [Father] doesn't have the child and where the child is." Captain Donoghe arranged for Mother to be present and participate via telephone. Mother maintained that she would not return E. to Father in Florida because she believed that Florida would not recognize a Maryland custody order. Mother further informed the court that E. was, at that time, residing in Massachusetts with her mother, E.'s maternal grandmother. Mother explained that E. had not been able to have Facetime vistiation or other communication with Father because the maternal grandmother "does not have any kind of internet service or any kind of Facetime or any kind of cellphone service, unfortunately."
The court repeatedly asked for the address where E. was residing in Massachusetts, but Mother did not provide an address, instead explaining...
To continue reading
Request your trial