Posted on April 08, 2020 in Child Custody

Many parents have lost their jobs as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. With the closure of non-essential businesses and the government recommendation to stay at home, some parents are not able to find work. A court-ordered obligation to pay child support does not automatically stop because of a job loss, even if that job loss if through no fault of your own.

If you have lost your job and are unable to pay child support, we encourage you to communicate with your co-parent as soon as possible. Perhaps a written agreement or consent order can be worked out between the two of you to stay the child support payments until you are back to work. In Maryland, child support can be modified in certain circumstances, but with the courts only hearing certain types of emergency matters at the present time, a hearing on the modification will take longer than usual. However, it may still be worth filing with the court for a modification to attempt to protect yourself from the accumulation of child support arrearages while unemployed. In the meantime, the Maryland Judiciary has directed that you must continue to pay child support as ordered. The Maryland Judiciary has suggested that if you have questions or need help, whether you pay or receive child support, to call the Department of Human Services Call Center 1-800-322-6347. Maryland Courts Coronavirus Information

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 08, 2020 in Child Custody

We understand that parents are facing challenging times in the midst of this COVID-19 pandemic. When one parent is an essential employee, it is especially concerning for co-parents when children transition from one parent’s home to the other for court-ordered parenting time. National news stories are filled with children and parents greeting each other through glass doors and windows. Those front-line, essential-employee parents recognize that in-person contact with their children during this COVID-19 pandemic is not in the best interest of the health and safety of their children.   Closer to home, the White House has now officially designated the Baltimore / Washington, D.C. area as an emerging COVID-19 hotspot. Baltimore/Washington DC Emerging Hot Spot.

If you co-parent with a front-line or essential employee in Maryland, we encourage you to communicate as co-parents to come to a physical custody and access arrangement in the best interest of the health and safety of your children during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Maryland Judiciary has provided direction that if co-parents cannot agree, they must follow the terms of the court Order.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 07, 2020 in Child Custody

Another unfortunate consequence of COVID-19 is the postponement of the pendente lite hearings, settlement conferences and merit trials which were actually scheduled on the court docket months ago, but are not going forward as planned due to the court closures. Thus far, my experience has been that the courts are working hard to get the postponed cases reset as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, I have already had several client matters get reset only to be postponed and reset yet again as a result of the Administrative Order to extend the court closures. As a litigant, this can be extremely frustrating especially when the access to/custody of your children and finances remain uncertain.

Mediation remains an option to consider bringing temporary or complete closure to your family law matter. Mediation has the capability of being conducted via video conferencing with a trained mediator or retired Judge which will ensure all parties, counsel and the mediator remain in compliance with CDC recommendations and Governor Hogan’s Orders while we all weather this crisis. The upside to successful mediation is you have some or complete closure now versus months from now when your matter is finally set back in to be heard by the Court. Mediation does not work in every case, but given these uncertain and challenging times, it may be worth considering as an option.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 07, 2020 in Child Custody

The short answer is yes, if your situation meets the statutory requirements for a protective order, peace order or extreme risk protective order, you may still obtain an interim order of protection. Pursuant to the Maryland Court of Appeals Chef Judge Administrative Order issued March 25, 2020, all petitions for new protective orders, peace orders, and extreme risk protective orders are to be handled by the District Court Commissioners’ office in the County/City where you would normally file. If granted by the Commissioner, the Interim Order will remain in place until further action is taken by the Court. As of now (April 7, 2020), the temporary hearings are being set for May 4 and 5, 2020 which may be subject to change, if the Administrative Order is modified.

If you are in need of protection and are seeking a protective order, peace order or extreme risk protective order, you should call the District Court Commissioner in your county or City first to obtain instructions on where to go.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 06, 2020 in Child Custody

Oftentimes, parents with the best intentions disagree on how to manage the health, safety, and medical issues of their children. Throw in a pandemic and navigating custody and access becomes even more of a challenge with COVID-19 CDC recommendations and government-imposed restrictions. As a practitioner, this is a first, and we are all seeking some guidance from the judiciary to help us support and advise our clients on these issues. The Maryland Judiciary has put out the following statement on matters concerning children and families.

With schools closed and courthouses restricting operations to reduce exposure to COVID-19, custodians who live apart might be confused about changing family situations and their court orders. This statement is intended to clarify concerns you may have regarding these matters.
Custody and Parenting Time:
All court orders for a child’s custody, parenting time, and child support are still in effect. In some situations, if permitted under the court order, custodians can jointly adjust their shared parenting responsibilities in ways they can agree are best for the children. If custodians are not able to agree, the court order controls.
Working with limited staff, the Circuit Courts are only hearing family law emergencies where there is a credible risk of imminent and substantial physical or emotional harm to a child or parent.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 13, 2020 in Fire / burn malpractice

Propane vaporizers are mechanical devices that convert liquid propane (LPG) to propane gas.  Essentially, a propane vaporizer is a boiler that heats the liquid propane to the point where the propane turns to gas.

Propane vaporizers are used in many industrial settings.  For example, a business may need to convert large quantities of liquid propane to propane gas to heat an industrial oven or kiln.

When set up and operated properly, propane vaporizers are safe and effective.  However, if the installation is done incorrectly or if the vaporizer is operated improperly, an explosion and fire can result.

At Silverman Thompson, we have extensive experience litigating and settling catastrophic injury matters, including the following matter:

Settlement – Negligence (Propane Explosion Resulting In Burns)

$601,500

Case: Anonymous vs. Anonymous (Confidential Settlement)

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 31, 2020 in Childbirth Malpractice

A wrongful birth medical malpractice case alleges that a heath care provider such as a doctor (such as an OBGYN or radiologist), hospital or laboratory was negligent by failing to properly inform a pregnant mother that her fetus had some serious medical condition, so that the mother would have had an opportunity to terminate the pregnancy.

One type of wrongful birth claim involves the failure of an obstetrician or lab to properly report a positive blood test called a quadruple screen, which screens for a number of prenatal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome.  Another type of wrongful birth claim involves the failure of a radiologist to properly report that a sonogram shows Spina Bifida or certain markers, sometimes called hard and soft markers, for Down Syndrome.

Most states, like Maryland and the District of Columbia have recognized the ability of a mother to bring a wrongful birth medical malpractice claim.  Usually, the mother is allowed to claim the extraordinary cost of raising the child which, for a child with Down Syndrome, can be millions and millions of dollars.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 02, 2019 in Child Support

Bagley remains precedent in “above-the-guidelines” cases

Bagley v. Bagley, 98 Md. App. 18 (1993)

In Bagley, the Court of Special Appeals was asked to review the findings and recommendations of a Domestic Relations Master which were adopted by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. This case, like Voishan and your current case, was an above-the-guidelines case as the father of the parties’ minor children recorded an annual income of over $507,360.  The master made the recommendation that the father pay $2,722 in child support per month; this recommendation was subsequently adopted by the trial court.

The CSA first established that an accurate application of the child support guidelines works to maintain a child’s standard of living as if the parents had not been divorced.  In order to assist in the determination of a child support obligation in an above-the-guidelines case, the CSA developed a list of considerations that should “circumscribe and guide the trial judge’s discretion.”  The considerations include: “1) the purpose of the Income Shares Model underlying the guidelines, i.e., maintain the children at the same standard of living they would have enjoyed absent the parties’ divorce; 2) the financial circumstances of each party; 3) each party’s station in life; 4) the age and physical condition of the parties; 5) the costs of educating the child; 6) the need for consistency of support awards; 7) the maximum in the schedule is the minimum for combined incomes above the schedule; and 8) the result of extrapolation from the schedule.”  The CSA concluded its analysis by determining that the Bagley children are “entitled to every expense reasonable” for a child with income relative to their fathers,  and the trial judge should be “cognizant that a child’s needs, like an adult’s, increase proportionally with their opportunity to participate in educational, cultural, and recreational activities” which “builds upon itself creating new opportunities.”

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 29, 2019 in Child Support

Voishan remains precedent in “above-the-guidelines” cases.

• Voishan v. Palma, 327 Md. 318 (1992).

In Voishan, the Court of Appeals addressed a mother’s Motion to Modify Child Support.  The trial court granted the mother’s motion and ordered the father to double the amount of support he was paying for the parties’ only minor child.  Evidence was presented in support of the motion for modification which revealed that the father was earning $145,000 per year and the mother was earning $30,000 per year.  The combined adjusted actual income of the parties was therefore $175,000 a year or $14,583 per month.  At the time, the Maryland Child Support Guidelines established through Md. Family Law Code Ann. § 12-204(e) only set guidelines for a combined adjusted actual income of $10,000 per month.  In order to address cases, such as this, where the parties monthly income exceeded the guidelines, the legislature provided trial court’s with the discretion to set the amount of child support under Md. Family Law Code Ann. § 12-204(d).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 25, 2019 in Child Custody

A Custody Evaluator is appointed by a Court pursuant to Maryland Rule 9-205.3.  Pursuant to the Maryland Rule there are mandatory elements of a Custody Evaluation as set forth in 9-205.3(f)(1) and optional elements as set forth in 9-205.3(f)(2).  Mandatory elements, subject to any protective order of the court, a custody evaluation shall include: (A) a review of the relevant court records pertaining to the litigation; (B) an interview with each party; (C) an interview of the child, unless the custody evaluator determines and explains that by reason of age, disability, or lack of maturity, the child lacks capacity to be interviewed; (D) a review of any relevant educational, medical, and legal records pertaining to the child; (E) if feasible, observations of the child with each party, whenever possible in that party’s household; (F) factual findings about the needs of the child and the capacity of each party to meet the child’s needs; and (G) a custody and visitation recommendation based upon an analysis of the facts found or, if such a recommendation cannot be made, an explanation of why. Optional elements include, subject to subsection (f)(3) of this Rule, at the discretion of the custody evaluator, a custody evaluation also may include: (A) contact with collateral sources of information; (B) a review of additional records; (C) employment verification; (D) an interview with any other individual residing in the household; (E) a mental health evaluation; (F) consultation with other experts to develop information that is beyond the scope of the evaluator’s practice or area of expertise; and (G) an investigation into any other relevant information about the child’s needs. Maryland Rule 9-205.3(f)(1)(G) specifically provides the custody evaluator is to provide “a custody and visitation recommendation based upon an analysis of the facts found or, if such a recommendations cannot be made, an explanation of why”.

Continue Reading ››