FAMILY LAW TASK FORCE  Father and child

Chairs:

Senior Attorney Advocate: Margaret Maupin

For a complete list of Family Law Sample Pleadings, click Pleading in the task bar at the top of the page and then, from the drop down list, select Family Law

Home > Groups > Family Law Task Force

Family Law Task Force

Family Law Task Force content posted in order of most recent to oldest. 

PLI Free Briefing: Violence Against Women Act 2013

Posted on: 04/15/2013
Date: 
Mon, 04/29/2013 - 1:00pm - 2:00pm
Violence Against Women Act 2013 (Audio-only)

 

Apr. 29, 2013
1:00 PM Eastern

 

To register, click here:  One-Hour Briefing 
 
April 29, 2013, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm (E.D.T.)

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been a valuable tool for both law enforcement and immigration practitioners alike. The legislation has helped survivors of domestic and sexual violence come out the shadows and it has provided a mechanism for regularizing the immigration status of these survivors. VAWA 2013 now extends protections to other vulnerable groups.

Please join M. Audrey Carr, Director of Immigration and Special Programs at Legal Services NYC, and Julie E. Dinnerstein, Co-Director of the Immigration Intervention Project at Sanctuary for Families, for a free One-Hour briefing on VAWA 2013. Topics to be discussed include:

  • The history of VAWA
  • Expanded protections under VAWA 2013
  • Immigration Provisions of VAWA 2013

 

Attorneys of all backgrounds, expertise, and experience are welcome. Register now and don’t miss this important Free Briefing.

 

PLI Group Discounts

 

Groups of 4-14 from the same organization, all registering at the same time, for a PLI program scheduled for presentation at the same site, are entitled to receive a group discount. For further discount information, please contact membership@pli.edu or call (800) 260-4PLI.

 

PLI Can Arrange Group Viewing to Your Firm

 

Contact the Groupcasts Department via email at groupcasts@pli.edu for more details.

 

Cancellations

 

All cancellations received 3 business days prior to the program will be refunded 100%. If you do not cancel within the allotted time period, payment is due in full. You may substitute another individual to attend the program at any time.
Location
Location Name: 
Webcast
Sponsor: 
PLI

Family Law Legislation Update as of 4/5/13

Posted on: 04/05/2013
Here’s an update of family law related legislation.  Some items of interest (I’ve left out the CINA bills being tracked by the CINA task force) are:
 
HB 189, which would have altered the peace order statute to provide for an employer being able to file a peace order case when an employee is the victim, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 245, which creates a presumption of neglect in a controlled substance exposed newborn, passed both houses.
 
HB 326, which would establish a vulnerable adult abuse registry, got an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 333, the “Family Investment Program - Couples Advancing Together Pilot Program” act – a pretty name for a marriage incentive program – passed both Houses.
 
HB 535, which would create a surcharge on divorce complaints to be used by MLSC and the DV Program Fund, received an unfavorable report from Judiciary and was withdrawn.
 
HB 687, which would establish a Commission on Child Custody Decision Making, passed the House and received a favorable report by the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.
 
HB 748, which would allow parties to consider themselves as living separate and apart for the purposes of divorce even if they share a residence and living expenses, received an unfavorable report from Judiciary.  On the other hand, SB 503, the same bill, passed the Senate.
 
HB 804, which would require employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabilities due to pregnancy, passed the House and is now in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.
 
HB 849, a bill providing for a “multifamily adjustment” to adjusted actual income in calculating child support, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 853, allowing for permanent protective orders when the respondent has been sentenced to more than 5 years in jail for the incident leading to the protective order (and a lot of other detail), passed the House and has passed the 2nd reading in the Senate.  SB 417, cross-filed with HB 853, passed the Senate.
 
HB 872, requiring an expedited hearing on modification of a custody order or an order denying visitation, got an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 892, which would authorize a judge in a final protective order to order the respondent to remain a specified distance away, got an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 1037, providing that a spouse/victim could be compelled to testify against the spouse/defendant in a violation of protective order case, received an unfavorable report by Judiciary; it was cross-filed with SB 630 and received an unfavorable report from Judicial Proceedings.
 
HB 1186, establishing a task force on the prevention of child abuse & neglect, passed the House.
 
SB 104, which would change grounds for absolute divorce by changing the waiting period from 12 months to 6 months, got an unfavorable report by Judicial Proceedings.
 
SB 178, providing that a DNA match of at least 99% by a state approved lab constitutes a legal finding of paternity, passed the Senate and is now before the House Judiciary committee.
 
SB 181, dealing with presumption of support obligation without judicial action in some circumstances, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report by Judicial Proceedings.
 
SB 490, which adds “intimate partner” to persons eligible for relief under the DV statute, passed the Senate and is now in House Judiciary.
 
SB 620, excluding as the father a man who committed a sex offense against the mother for purposes of paternal rights in custody, guardianship, or adoption proceedings, passed the Senate and is before the House Judiciary committee as HB 715.
AttachmentSize
2013 4-5 Legislation Update.doc192 KB

Family Law Legislation Update of 4/1/13

Posted on: 04/01/2013
Here’s an update of family law related legislation.  Some items of interest:
 
HB 189, which would have altered the peace order statute to provide for an employer being able to file a peace order case when an employee is the victim, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 245, which creates a presumption of neglect in a controlled substance exposed newborn, passed the House and is now in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.
 
HB 326, which would establish a vulnerable adult abuse registry, got an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 333, the “Family Investment Program - Couples Advancing Together Pilot Program” act – which, as far as I can tell, is a marriage incentive program – passed the House and is now in the Senate Finance committee.
 
HB 535, which would create a surcharge on divorce complaints to be used by MLSC and the DV Program Fund, received an unfavorable report from Judiciary and was withdrawn.
 
HB 687, which would establish a Commission on Child Custody Decision Making, passed the House and is now in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.
 
HB 748, which would allow parties to consider themselves as living separate and apart for the purposes of divorce even if they share a residence and living expenses, received an unfavorable report from Judiciary.  On the other hand, SB 503, the same bill, passed the Senate.
 
HB 804, which would require employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabilities due to pregnancy, passed the House and is now in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.
 
HB 849, a bill providing for a “multifamily adjustment” to adjusted actual income in calculating child support, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 853, allowing for permanent protective orders when the respondent has been sentenced to more than 5 years in jail for the incident leading to the protective order (and a lot of other detail), passed the House and is now in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.  In the Senate, the same bill, SB 417, passed.
 
HB 872, requiring an expedited hearing on modification of a custody order or an order denying visitation, got an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 892, which would authorize a judge in a final protective order to order the respondent to remain a specified distance away, got an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 1037, providing that a spouse/victim could be compelled to testify against the spouse/defendant in a violation of protective order case, received an unfavorable report by Judiciary; it was cross-filed with SB 630 and received an unfavorable report from Judicial Proceedings.
 
SB 104, which would change grounds for absolute divorce by changing the waiting period from 12 months to 6 months, got an unfavorable report by Judicial Proceedings.
 
SB 178, providing that a DNA match of at least 99% by a state approved lab constitutes a legal finding of paternity, passed the Senate and is now before the House Judiciary committee.
 
SB 181, dealing with presumption of support obligation without judicial action in some circumstances, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report by Judicial Proceedings.
 
SB 490, which adds “intimate partner” to persons eligible for relief under the DV statute, passed the Senate and is now in House Judiciary.
 
SB 620, excluding as the father a man who committed a sex offense against the mother for purposes of paternal rights in custody, guardianship, or adoption proceedings, passed the Senate and is before the House Judiciary committee as HB 715.
AttachmentSize
2013 4-1 Legislation Update.doc192.5 KB

Family Law Task Force 3/26/13 in Towson

Posted on: 03/22/2013
Family Law Task Force Meeting Reminder

Tuesday, March 26, 2013
10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Baltimore County Legal Aid Office
29 W. Susquehanna Ave. Suite 305
Towson, Maryland 21204
If you plan to attend and have not already done so, please respond to this email with a cc: to Karen Smith (mailto:ksmith@mdlab.org blocked::mailto:ksmith@mdlab.org" href="mailto:ksmith@mdlab.org">ksmith@mdlab.org).  Agenda is attached.
 
GoToMeeting connection information:
   
Join the meeting by clicking on the URL link above.
Dial +1 (636) 277-0134
Access Code: 353-214-086
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting
Meeting ID: 353-214-086
 

3/21/13 Family Law Legislative Update

Posted on: 03/21/2013
Here’s an update of family law related legislation.  Some items of interest:
 
HB 189, which would have altered the peace order statute to provide for an employer being able to file a peace order case when an employee is the victim, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 245, which creates a presumption of neglect in a controlled substance exposed newborn, passed the House and is now in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.
 
HB 326, which would establish a vulnerable adult abuse registry, got an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 333, the “Family Investment Program - Couples Advancing Together Pilot Program” act – which, as far as I can tell, is a marriage incentive program – passed the House and is now in the Senate Finance committee.
 
HB 535, which would create a surcharge on divorce complaints to be used by MLSC and the DV Program Fund, received an unfavorable report from Judiciary and was withdrawn.
 
HB 687, which would establish a Commission on Child Custody Decision Making, passed the House.
 
HB 748, which would allow parties to consider themselves as living separate and apart for the purposes of divorce even if they share a residence and living expenses, received an unfavorable report from Judiciary.  On the other hand, SB 503, the same bill, passed the Senate.
 
HB 849, a bill providing for a “multifamily adjustment” to adjusted actual income in calculating child support, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 853, allowing for permanent protective orders when the respondent has been sentenced to more than 5 years in jail for the incident leading to the protective order (and a lot of other detail), passed the House.  In the Senate, the same bill, SB 417, passed the 2nd reading with amendments.
 
HB 872, requiring an expedited hearing on modification of a custody order or an order denying visitation, got an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 892, which would authorize a judge in a final protective order to order the respondent to remain a specified distance away, got an unfavorable report from Judiciary.
 
HB 1037, providing that a spouse/victim could be compelled to testify against the spouse/defendant in a violation of protective order case, received an unfavorable report by Judiciary; it was cross-filed with SB 630 and received an unfavorable report from Judicial Proceedings.
 
SB 104, which would change grounds for absolute divorce by changing the waiting period from 12 months to 6 months, got an unfavorable report by Judicial Proceedings.
 
SB 178, providing that a DNA match of at least 99% by a state approved lab constitutes a legal finding of paternity, passed the Senate and is now before the House Judiciary committee.
 
SB 181, dealing with presumption of support obligation without judicial action in some circumstances, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report by Judicial Proceedings.
 
SB 620, excluding as the father a man who committed a sex offense against the mother for purposes of paternal rights in custody, guardianship, or adoption proceedings, passed the Senate and is before the House Judiciary committee as HB 715.
AttachmentSize
2013 3-21 Legislation Update.doc182.5 KB

3/11/13: The latest on the family law front from the General Assembly

Posted on: 03/11/2013
Attached is the latest on legislation of interest to family law practitioners.  Some of the changes since the last update:
 
  • HB 1037, which would have provided that a spouse/witness in a trial on a protective order violation may not claim spousal immunity, received an unfavorable report from Judiciary.  SB 630, its companion bill, received an unfavorable report from Judicial Proceedings.
  • SB 71, removing the exemption of retirement accounts from collection by the CCEA, passed the Senate.
  • SB 114, requiring Hep B testing for pregnant women, passed the Senate.
  • SB 178, a bill that will make a DNA paternity test of at least 99%, from a state-approved lab, a “legal finding” of paternity, received a favorable report from Judicial Proceedings.
  • SB 181, providing for a “presumptive support obligation” under some circumstances, without a judicial finding, was withdrawn after an unfavorable report in Judicial Proceedings.
  • Several CINA bills were acted on:  HB 245, creating a presumption of neglect in the case of substance-exposed newborns, came out of Judiciary with a favorable report, as did HB 277, dealing with review hearings in CINA cases.  HB 278, dealing with rights of and notices given to preadoptive parents and foster parents, passed the House.
 
AttachmentSize
2013 3-11 Legislation Update.doc176 KB

3/1/13: The latest on the family law front from the General Assembly

Posted on: 03/01/2013

3/1/13:  The latest on the family law front from the General Assembly

Attached is an update on all family law related legislation before the General Assembly.  A few bills have either died or progressed:

  • HB 22, cross-filed with SB 165, Adoption – Access to Birth and Adoption Records and Search, Contact, and Reunion Services, received an unfavorable report by Judiciary.
  • HB 189, Courts - Peace Orders - Acts Committed Against Employees, received an unfavorable report by judiciary and was withdrawn.
  • HB 278, cross-filed with SB 265, Children in Need of Assistance - Rights of Preadoptive Parents, Foster Parents, and Caregivers of Child, received a favorable report by Judiciary.
  • HB 326, cross-filed with SB 333, Criminal Procedure - Vulnerable Adult Abuse Registry, received an unfavorable report by Judiciary.
  • HB 403, Family Child Care Homes - Adult to Child Ratio - Children Under 2 Years, received an unfavorable Report by Health and Government Operations and was withdrawn.
  • HB 535, Court Fees - Surcharge on Divorce Petitions - Distribution to the Domestic Violence Program Fund, received an unfavorable report by Judiciary.
  • HB 876, Child Abuse - Failure to Report - Civil Penalty, Fund, and Task Force, received an unfavorable report by Judiciary.
  • SB 86, Voluntary Placement for Former Children in Need of Assistance, passed, and, in the House, there will be a hearing before Judiciary on 3/28/13.
  • SB 104, Family Law - Grounds for Absolute Divorce - Time Requirements, received an unfavorable report by Judicial Proceedings.
  • SB 181, Family Law - Child Support - Presumptive Support Obligation, the rumor is that this bill will be withdrawn.

 

 

AttachmentSize
2013 3-1 Legislation Update.doc170.5 KB

Legislation of Interest to Family Law Practitioners as of 2/26/13

Posted on: 02/27/2013

Here is the latest update, coutesy of Risheena Schwemle.

AttachmentSize
2013 2-26 Legislation Update.doc157 KB

What Our Clients Really Need is Money! Helping Clients Make the Most of Their Pension

Posted on: 02/21/2013
Date: 
Tue, 03/05/2013 - 10:00am - 2:00pm

Free Training on Pension Rights!  Learn from the experts at the National Pension Rights Center how to advise clients so they can get the most out of their pensions.  We all know that many legal problems stem from the fact that our clients simply don't have enough money to pay their bills.  By helping clients understand their pension rights, you could be helping them increase their income every month!  From helping clients understand pension statements to finding lost pensions, some basic advice can go a long way.  This training is appropriate for many types of advocates: including folks who handle intake, consumer law, elder law, family law, and more.  Legal Aid staff, other legal services advocates, and pro bono or volunteer attorneys are all welcome!

So, join us on Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:00 am- 2:00 pm, for What Our Clients Really Need is Money! Helping Clients Make the Most of their Pension. The training will be held at the Charles Ecker Business Training Center located at 6751 Columbia Gateway Drive, Columbia, MD 21046. Lunch and materials will be provided.

To sign up for this free training opportunity, go to http://understandingpensions.eventbrite.com 

 Topics include: 

- overview of basic features of employer sponsored retirement savings plan

-basic rules and terminology

-issue spotting pension problems

As with all Legal Aid trainings, if you are a Maryland Legal Aid staff member please consult with your supervisor and obtain approval to attend prior to registering for the training. If you have any questions please contact Yoanna at ymoisides@mdlab.org  .

 

 

What:       What Our Clients Really Need is Money! Helping Clients Make the Most of Their Pension

When:      Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:00 -2:00 p.m.

Where:     Charles Ecker Business Training Center located at 6751 Columbia Gateway Drive, Columbia, MD 21046

Location
Location Name: 
Charles Ecker Business Training Center
Address1: 
6751 Columbia Gateway Drive
City: 
Columbia
State: 
MD
Zip: 
21046
Contact
Name: 
Yoanna Moisides
Phone: 
ymoisides@mdlab.org
Sponsor: 
Maryland Legal Aid

Chafin vs. Chafin: SCOTUS Rules Hague Convention Case is Not Moot Simply Because Child Lives Abroad

Posted on: 02/20/2013
From SCOTUSblog, 2/20/13:  In Chafin v. Chafin, the Court unanimously held that a father’s appeal of a district court order allowing his child’s mother to take the child to Scotland is not moot simply because the child is no longer in the United States.
 
The Court's opinion, 11-1347, February 19, 2013, is attached.
 
Press coverage:
                   
AttachmentSize
Chaffin vs Chaffin.pdf162.32 KB
up

Enforcement of "Incorporated but not Merged" Separation Agreement

Posted on: 02/20/2013
Hypothetical:
 
Parties own a home as t by e.  They sign a separation agreement which gives the house to H.  H has to remove W's name from the deed within a year.  If he doesn't, he has to sell the house.  18 months later he hasn't done either and property is shown in SDAT as being owned by the parties as joint tenants.  HOA sues H for past HOA fees.  H files suggestion of bankruptcy.  HOA sues W.
 
W can deal with the suit.  It's not for much money and she can implead H.
 
To prevent this from happening in the future, W needs to enforce the separation agreement.  Have any of you dealt with such a situation?
  1. Can she file a petition for contempt in the divorce case to enforce a provision in a separation agreement that is incorporated but not merged?
  2. Should she instead file a complaint for specific performance?
  3. If she does, should she reopen the divorce case or file a new contract action?

Family Law Legislation as of February 15, 2013

Posted on: 02/15/2013

Here's the latest family law related legislation. A couple of things have already gone down in flames, notably SB 103 which attempted to reduce the wait time for absolute divorce from 1 year to 6 months, which got an unfavorable committee report.

AttachmentSize
2013 2-15 Legislation Update.doc164.5 KB

ABA Request for Advisors – Uniform Laws Commission Study and Drafting Committees – 3rd Party Custody and Family Law Arbitration

Posted on: 02/15/2013
For those of you who are members of the ABA Family Law Section, I received this email regarding a request for advisors from the Uniform Laws Commission.  I have attached the documents attached to the email:
 
(1) The ABA Participation in National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws Study Committee Procedures
 
(2) Participation of ABA Liaisons with the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws Drafting Committees and Procedures with Respect to the Formulation of Uniform Acts to the ABA
 
Request for Advisors – New Uniform Laws Commission Study and Drafting Committees – 3rd Party Custody and Family Law Arbitration
 
Greetings,
 
The Uniform Law Commission has established four new drafting committees and three new study committees, and seeks ABA advisors to each.  Of particular interest to family law practitioners are the following three committees:
 
(1)  Study Committee on Third Party Rights to Child Custody and Visitation
 
State legislation and judicial decisions concerning the rights of third parties (such as grandparents, stepparents, domestic partners, and siblings) to rights of custody of or visitation with a child vary greatly.  Those rights are also affected by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), which held that courts must give deference to decisions of fit parents concerning the raising of children, including concerning grandparents' visitation rights.  This Study Committee will consider the need for and feasibility of drafting and enacting state legislation concerning the rights of third parties to custody of or visitation with a child.  This project was recommended by the Joint Editorial Board for Uniform Family Laws.
 
(2)  Drafting Committee on Family Law Arbitration
 
While arbitration has not normally been permitted in family law matters, in recent years a number of states have adopted legislation that authorizes arbitration with respect to some issues in the family law area.  This Drafting Committee will draft an act that provides authorization for the use of arbitration as a method of resolving some family law disputes and that will provide any special provisions, in addition to those in existing state arbitration legislation, that are necessary to facilitate the use of arbitration in family law matters.  This project was recommended by the Joint Editorial Board for Uniform Family Laws.
 
Study committee section advisors:  Phyllis Bossin, Family Law; Barton Resnicoff, Family Law; Mary Vidas, Family Law; Randall Warner, Judicial Division
 
(3)  Drafting Committee on Recognition and Enforcement of Canadian Domestic-Violence Protection Orders
 
In 2011 the Uniform Law Conference of Canada promulgated legislation that would facilitate the recognition and enforcement in Canada of domestic-violence protection orders that are entered by courts in Canada and by courts outside Canada if certain requirements are met.  Earlier in 2011 the Council of the Hague Conference on Private International Law asked its Secretariat to study the feasibility of drafting an international convention concerning the recognition and enforcement of domestic-violence protection orders. The Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic-Violence Protection Orders Act (last amended in 2002), applies only to enforcement of orders entered by courts in the United States.  This Drafting Committee will draft amendments to the Uniform Act or a  separate act that will provide for recognition and enforcement of Canadian domestic-violence protection orders in the United States, and the Committee also will monitor developments at the Hague Conference concerning these issues.  This project was recommended by the Joint Editorial Board for Uniform Family Laws.
 
Study committee section advisors:  Stephanie Domitrovich, Judicial Division; Susan Gaertner, Criminal Justice; Susan Moiseev, Judicial Division
 
If you are interested in volunteering your time to any of these committees, please send your name, committee of interest, and CV to my attention by Friday, February 15, 2013.
 
Thank you very much.
 
Cynthia G. Swan
Director - Section of Family Law
American Bar Association
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Office: (312) 988-5619
Cell: (773) 490-9320
Fax: (312) 988-6800
Cynthia.Swan@americanbar.o
 
AttachmentSize
ABA Procedures--2011 revision.pdf12.73 KB
ABA Study Cmt Procedures 2-09.pdf285.77 KB

4/16/12 - SCOTUS Hears Arguments in Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl Case

Posted on: 02/11/2013

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in 12-399, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the case that addresses the legality under federal law of a non-Indian couple’s adoption of an Indian child over the father’s objection.

Legislative Update for Family Law Practitioners – 2/5/13

Posted on: 02/05/2013
The General Assembly has been busy!  Attached is a list of the bills that are related to family law.  I have also attached the text of some of the bills.
 
  • HB 535 deals with a proposed surcharge on divorce “petitions” to fund DV programs. (The use of the word “petition” is a good example of why law practitioners rather than politicians should write these things!)  
  • HB 687 is yet another attempt to set up a commission to study what if any additions should be made to the family law article to deal with custody decisions.  The commission would include legislators from both houses, judges, masters, family law practitioners, MSBA reps, mental health practitioners, and “… one representative of a domestic violence advocacy group; one representative of a fathers’ rights group; one representative of the Women’s Law Center …”  
  • SB 104 is a proposal to change the grounds for absolute divorce, reducing the separation requirement from 1 year to 6 months.  
  • SB 178 and SB 181 deal with establishing a “presumptive support obligation” if DNA results show at least a 99% probability of paternity (if from a lab approved by the state) and appear to provide for collection of child support without a judicial determination.  
  • SB 417 proposes a requirement that a court issue a permanent protective order if a respondent has been sentenced to (changed from serving) 5 years for specified offenses.  
  • SB 490 proposes a change in the definition of “persons eligible for relief” under the DV law in an attempt to be more inclusive.  
  • SB 503 – a long time coming – proposes, for purposes of granting a limited or absolute divorce, to make living in separate bedrooms good enough to show living separate and apart, and doing away with the necessity for 3rd party corroboration.  
  • SB 571 proposes a change to the way child support is calculated by subtracting from “gross income” an allowance for children who live in the home and whom one has a duty to support.  
  • HB 715 and SB 620 allow a court, for the purposes of guardianship or adoption proceedings,  to exclude as the father of a child anyone who has committed sex offenses or rape where the child in question is a result of the crime.  
  • SB 731 is another attempt to authorize judges to order the respondent in a DV case to stay a certain distance from the petitioner’s residence, job, school, etc.  
  • SB 792 is the proposed collaborative reproduction act.  
  • SB 802, called the “adoption awareness program,” would require the state to “collaborate with specified interest groups” to develop educational materials for folks with unwanted pregnancies.  The specified interest groups are not specified in the bill, and I imagine they are anti-choice groups.
  • Interestingly, HB 505, HB 514, and SB 650 all deal with the Child Support Enforcement Administration and hunting licenses; the bills seek to exempt hunting licenses from the requirement that licensing agencies keep Social Security numbers.  They are indexed under family law because they affect the information the DNR has on licensees which in turn affects what they can turn over to the CCEA.
AttachmentSize
2013 2-5 Legislation Update.doc123 KB
2013 HB 687.pdf119.77 KB
2013 HB 715.pdf146.29 KB
2013 SB 178.pdf107.33 KB
2013 SB 181.pdf128.66 KB
2013 SB 417.pdf109.27 KB
2013 SB 490.pdf115.69 KB
2013 SB 503.pdf109.58 KB
2013 SB 579.pdf134.92 KB

New Content in MdJ Book - "Family Law: Domestic Violence"

Posted on: 02/04/2013

For family law practitioners, and others interested, I have added a great deal of content to the MdJustice book "Family Law: Domestic Violence" in the past week - a substantial amount of case law, human rights information (in particular, briefs and the decision in the Lenahan case), VAWA/housing info, info and case law re: battered spouse syndrome, and more.

If you want something posted in the DV book and don't know how to post it, please email it to me and I'll do it.

We've said this before, but it bears repeating:  I want the information in the family law section of MdJustice to be as helpful and user-friendly as possible, so please let me know if you have suggestions for improvement.

2007 - Suter vs. Stuckey - Right to Appeal Protective Order; No Right to Appeal Consent Protective Order

Posted on: 01/31/2013
Suter v. Stuckey, 402 Md. 211 (2007)
 
Court of Appeals headnotes:
 
APPEALS - RIGHT OF REVIEW - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - PROTECTIVE ORDER:  Family Law § 4-507 provides for a right of appeal from the entry of a protective order from the District Court to the Circuit Court and the appeal shall be heard de novo.
 
APPEALS - RIGHT OF REVIEW: The right to appeal may be lost by acquiescence in or consent to a final judgment. Accordingly, absent fraud or coercion, no appeal lies from a consent judgment.
 
APPEALS - RIGHT OF REVIEW - ESTOPPEL, WAIVER, OR AGREEMENT – TRIAL DE NOVO: Absent fraud or coercion, a party may not appeal a protective order entered by consent pursuant to the Domestic Violence Protection Act.
AttachmentSize
Suter vs Stuckey.pdf180.41 KB
up

2000 – Md. Op. Atty. Gen. – Full Faith & Credit – Criminal Enforcement of Foreign Protective Orders

Posted on: 01/31/2013
Full Faith & Credit for Foreign Domestic Violence Protective Orders
85 Md. Op. Atty. Gen. 87, 2000 WL 472838
Office of the Attorney General
State of Maryland
Opinion No. 00-009
April 11, 2000
 
An out of state protective order is enforceable in Maryland and an individual who violates an out of state protective order by conduct in Maryland may be arrested and prosecuted in Maryland.
 
From the AG's Opinion:
 
In our opinion, an individual who violates an out-of-state protective order in Maryland may be arrested and criminally prosecuted under FL §§4-508.1 and 4-509, if a similar violation of a Maryland protective order would be a criminal offense. The prosecutor would charge a violation of FL §4-509.
 
When a law enforcement officer is presented with a copy of an out-of-state protective order and a request for criminal enforcement of the order, the officer should first determine from the face of the order the identity of the respondent and whether the order remains effective. The officer should then assess whether there is probable cause to believe that the respondent has violated the order and, if so, whether a similar violation of a Maryland protective order could furnish the basis for a criminal prosecution. Before making an arrest, the officer should make a preliminary determination as to whether the copy of the order presented is authenticated under federal law or the law of the state in which it was issued.
 
Under federal law, a copy of an order that contains or is accompanied by an attestation of the clerk of the issuing court, the seal of the court (if one exists), and a certification by the court is properly authenticated. The law of the jurisdiction in which the order was issued may also permit other forms of authentication.
 
Finally, we recommend that the General Assembly consider amending FL §4-508.1, both to clarify the original intent of the Legislature and to make the Maryland Domestic Violence Law more consistent with the federal statute. In particular, FL §4-508.1(a) could be amended to authorize criminal enforcement of out-of- state ex parte orders under the same circumstances as ex parte orders issued by Maryland courts. At the very least, FL §4-508.1(b) should be amended to make clear that a foreign order may be authenticated under the court rules of the issuing jurisdiction, as well as under federal and foreign state statutes.
 
AttachmentSize
85 OAG 87 DV Full Faith & Credit.pdf189.63 KB
up
Syndicate content

Feedback

We welcome your comments and suggestions