Newkirk v. Newkirk

17 Citing cases

  1. Pastore v. Sharp

    81 Md. App. 314 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1990)   Cited 25 times
    Discussing fitness

    While it is indeed true that the "best interests of the child standard" continues to reign, where there is a custody contest between a natural parent and a third party, there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the natural parent. Only last year we said in Newkirk v. Newkirk, 73 Md. App. 588, 535 A.2d 947 (1988): Although the "best interest of the child" standard prevails, in this State there is a prima facie presumption that a child's welfare is best served in the care and custody of its natural parents rather than a third party.

  2. Gestl v. Frederick

    754 A.2d 1087 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000)   Cited 12 times
    Determining that the trial court was required to exercise jurisdiction over a child visitation lawsuit brought by the biological mother's former same-sex partner under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act

    Unlike Tennessee courts, however, Maryland courts have awarded custody to third parties upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., Pick, 199 Md. at 351-52 (awarding custody of child to third party over natural mother when third party had raised child for ten years after mother abandoned child); Dietrich v. Anderson, 185 Md. 103, 116 (1945) (denying father's petition for custody when child had been living with foster parents for five years); Pastore v. Sharp, 81 Md. App. 314, 322 (1989), cert. denied, 319 Md. 304 (1990) (finding exceptional circumstances when child had been in custody of third party for two of his five years, child had become attached to third party, and his future would lack stability and certainty if placed with the natural mother); Newkirk v. Newkirk, 73 Md. App. 588, 595 (1988) (finding exceptional circumstances in awarding custody of teenage children to half-brother, rather than natural father, when children had resided with half-brother and natural mother until her death, children were emotionally well adjusted, and indicated a preference to remain with half-brother). In Hoffman, supra, the biological mother placed her child in the care of the Hoffmans when the child was three and a half months old.

  3. Tedesco v. Tedesco

    111 Md. App. 648 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996)   Cited 15 times
    In Tedesco, supra, we likewise affirmed a trial court's decision to grant custody to a biological parent, in a dispute with the child's stepfather.

    See also Robinson v. Robinson, 328 Md. 507, 513, 615 A.2d 1190 (1992); Elza v. Elza, 300 Md. 51, 55-56, 475 A.2d 1180 (1984); Hoffman, 280 Md. at 186, 372 A.2d 582; Wagner v. Wagner, 109 Md. App. 1, 40, 674 A.2d 1 (1996); Burrows v. Sanders, 99 Md. App. 69, 75-76, 635 A.2d 82 (1994), cert. denied, 335 Md. 228, 643 A.2d 383 (1994); Levitt v. Levitt, 79 Md. App. 394, 398-400, 556 A.2d 1162, cert. denied, 316 Md. 549, 560 A.2d 1118 (1989); Scott v. Department of Social Servs., 76 Md. App. 357, 382-83, 545 A.2d 81, cert. denied, 314 Md. 193, 550 A.2d 381 (1988); Sanders, 38 Md. App. at 419, 381 A.2d 1154. Indeed, the chancellor's decision is unlikely to be overturned on appeal. Domingues v. Johnson, 323 Md. 486, 492 n. 2, 593 A.2d 1133 (1991) ("A chancellor's decision founded upon sound legal principles and based upon factual findings that are not clearly erroneous will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of a clear abuse of discretion." (citations omitted)); see also Newkirk v. Newkirk, 73 Md. App. 588, 591, 535 A.2d 947 (1988) (custody decision is not a matter for the best judgment of the reviewing court). Additionally, the trial court's opportunity to observe the demeanor and credibility of the parties and witnesses is of particular importance.

  4. Conaway v. Deane

    401 Md. 219 (Md. 2007)   Cited 74 times
    Holding sexual-orientation-based legislation is not entitled to heightened scrutiny because gay and lesbian people are not politically powerless, even though other factors are satisfied

    The sexual orientation of the individuals raising the custody claim was not a relevant factor in the court's holding — the former same-sex partner was viewed as any other third party who had a role in the child's life and could show exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., Shurupoff v. Vockroth, 372 Md. 639, 814 A.2d 543 (2003) (affirming grant of custody to grandparents); Dietrich v. Anderson, 185 Md. 103, 116, 43 A.2d 186 (1945) (denying father's petition for custody when child had been living with foster parents for five years); Pastore v. Sharp, 81 Md.App. 314, 322, 567 A.2d 509, 513 (1989), cert. denied, 319 Md. 304, 572 A.2d 182 (1990) (finding exceptional circumstances when child had been in custody of third party for two of his five years, child had become attached to third party, and his future would lack stability and certainty if placed with the natural mother); Newkirk v. Newkirk, 73 Md.App. 588, 595, 535 A.2d 947, 950-51 (1988) (finding exceptional circumstances in awarding custody of teenage children to half-brother, rather than natural father). This Court stated recently that "where private third parties are attempting to gain custody of children from their natural parents, the trial court must first find that both natural parents are unfit to have custody of their children or that extraordinary circumstances exist which are significantly detrimental to the child remaining in the custody of the parent or parents, before a trial court should consider the "'best interests of the child' standard as a means of deciding the dispute."

  5. Monroe v. Monroe

    329 Md. 758 (Md. 1993)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that "when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child, as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes, and the policy of this State, it must first be tested in light of [the best interest of the child] standard"

    In these cases the best interests of the child standard was employed, not as a rule for the ascertainment and admissibility of evidence, but as the standard for determining the ultimate decision in the case. See, e.g., DeGrange v. Kline, 254 Md. 240, 254 A.2d 353 (1969); Melton v. Connolly, 219 Md. 184, 148 A.2d 387 (1959); Trenton v. Christ, 216 Md. 418, 140 A.2d 660 (1958); Ross v. Pick, 199 Md. 341, 351, 86 A.2d 463, 468 (1952); Pastore v. Sharp, 81 Md. App. 314, 567 A.2d 509 (1989), cert. denied, 319 Md. 304, 572 A.2d 182 (1990); Newkirk v. Newkirk, 73 Md. App. 588, 535 A.2d 947 (1988). There is no sound reason why the Court should suggest that this logical approach to child custody cases be abandoned.

  6. Nusbaum v. Nusbaum

    243 Md. App. 653 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019)   Cited 5 times
    Discussing requirements of related doctrines of judicial estoppel and equitable estoppel

    Prince Geo. Co. Office of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Polly v. Brown , 236 Md. App. 626, 634, 182 A.3d 335 (2018) ("[T]he non-custodial parent remains ‘under a continuing obligation to provide for the support of his children until such time as the order [i]s modified.’ "); Newkirk v. Newkirk , 73 Md. App. 588, 596–97, 535 A.2d 947 (1988). We conclude that Mr. Nusbaum seemingly has taken contrasting positions in the same child support action.

  7. David A. v. Karen S.

    242 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019)   Cited 20 times

    Or any two parties who seek attorney's fees from each other, regardless of how many parties are involved in the dispute?See alsoDe Angelis v. Kelley , 184 Md. 183, 186, 40 A.2d 332 (1944) (recognizing that a third-party has a right to participate in custody litigation); Green v. Green , 188 Md. App. 661, 680, 982 A.2d 1150 (2009) (granting "primary, residential custody" of child to an aunt and uncle); Karen P. v. Christopher J.B. , 163 Md. App. 250, 278, 878 A.2d 646 (2005) (custody granted to non-biological father); Pastore v. Sharp , 81 Md. App. 314, 322-25, 567 A.2d 509 (1989) (custody awarded to child's aunt and uncle where child would lack stability if placed with the biological mother); Newkirk v. Newkirk , 73 Md. App. 588, 595, 535 A.2d 947 (1988) (awarding custody of teenage children to half-brother, rather than biological father); Ross v. Hoffman , 280 Md. 172, 179, 372 A.2d 582 (1977) (denying custody to biological mother in favor of a third-party); Ross v. Pick , 199 Md. 341, 352, 86 A.2d 463 (1952) (finding "no sufficient reason" to award custody to mother where a third-party had cared for the child for ten years); Dietrich v. Anderson , 185 Md. 103, 116, 43 A.2d 186 (1945) (denying father's complaint for custody where child had been living with foster parents for five years); Trenton v. Christ , 216 Md. 418, 423, 140 A.2d 660 (1958) (affirming award of custody to grandparents and finding a "genuine risk to th[e] child's wellbeing" if removed from the grandparents' care); Piotrowski v. State on Application of Kowalek , 179 Md. 377, 383, 18 A.2d 199 (1941) (determining that "custody and control of the child" was properly with the maternal grandparents). In the context of the entire provision and the broader statutory schem

  8. Prince George's Cnty. Office of Child Support Enf't ex rel. Polly v. Brown

    236 Md. App. 626 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018)   Cited 6 times

    Moreover, a parent's obligation to pay support does not cease with the custodial parent's death. Newkirk v. Newkirk , 73 Md. App. 588, 596–97, 535 A.2d 947 (1988). On the contrary, the non-custodial parent remains "under a continuing obligation to provide for the support of his children until such time as the order [i]s modified."

  9. Prince George's Cnty. Office of Child Support Enf't ex rel. Polly v. Brown

    No. 2417 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 23, 2018)

    Moreover, a parent's obligation to pay support does not cease with the custodial parent's death. Newkirk v. Newkirk, 73 Md. App. 588, 596-97 (1988). On the contrary, the non-custodial parent remains "under a continuing obligation to provide for the support of his children until such time as the order [i]s modified."

  10. Burak v. Burak

    231 Md. App. 242 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Dismissing appeal to the extent it challenged ruling made at a hearing for which no transcript was provided

    We see nothing in the statute or elsewhere to suggest that the guidelines should not apply when a third party has custody of a child and seeks child support from the noncustodial parents. Indeed, a parent has an obligation to pay child support to a custodial third party, seeNewkirk v. Newkirk , 73 Md.App. 588, 596–97, 535 A.2d 947 (1988) (holding that divorced father continued to owe child support to his children's deceased mother's brother where she asked her brother to be the guardian of her minor children), and there is no reason to view the extent of the support obligation differently simply because the payee is someone other than the parent. See FL § 12–202(a) ("[I]n any proceeding to establish or modify child support, whether pendente lite or permanent, the court shall use the child support guidelines set forth in this subtitle [§ 12–204]."