146 A.3d 567
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Infant A.M.C. born in Maryland (June 2014). Parents married and lived in Montgomery County, Maryland.
- Mother (Cabrera) obtained a Maryland temporary protective order (TPO) in Oct. 2014 that awarded her temporary custody; merits hearing continued and visits by father (Mercado) occurred without incident.
- On Nov. 15, 2014 Cabrera left for Puerto Rico with the child; on Nov. 17 she filed for custody in Puerto Rico and dismissed the Maryland protective petition via counsel.
- Father promptly filed for emergency return/custody in Montgomery County; Maryland court entered an emergency temporary custody order (Nov. 25, 2014) directing return and forbidding removal from Maryland.
- Puerto Rico court later entered a custody order awarding custody to Cabrera after default proceedings; Maryland refused to decline jurisdiction and after hearings awarded final custody to Mercado (Dec. 2015).
- Appeal centers on whether Maryland had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), sufficiency of notice/service for the emergency order, the court’s communications with Puerto Rico, forum non conveniens analysis, and appealability of a body‑attachment order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cabrera) | Defendant's Argument (Mercado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland could enter emergency custody when a Puerto Rico proceeding was pending | Puerto Rico had commenced a custody proceeding first; Maryland should not have exercised jurisdiction while that proceeding was pending | Maryland was the child’s home state; Maryland’s protective‑order proceeding was the first custody proceeding and conferred continuing jurisdiction | Maryland had home‑state jurisdiction under both UCCJEA and PKPA; Maryland’s earlier TPO was the initial custody determination, so Maryland’s orders were proper |
| Whether the emergency order was invalid for lack of personal service on Cabrera before issuance | Emergency order invalid because Cabrera hadn’t been personally served before Nov. 25, 2014 | Cabrera absconded; counsel used emails and other reasonable efforts; Rule 1‑351 and FL §9.5‑107 permit notice reasonably calculated to give actual notice | Issue deemed moot as final custody order supersedes the emergency order, but on the merits court found notice efforts satisfied Maryland Rule 1‑351 and FL §9.5‑107 because Cabrera made herself unavailable |
| Whether Maryland erred by not communicating with Puerto Rico before issuing the emergency order | FL §9.5‑204(d)(1) requires immediate communication with other state when aware of another custody proceeding | Maryland was exercising continuing home‑state jurisdiction, not temporary emergency jurisdiction under §9.5‑204, so that provision did not apply | Moot in practical effect; court correctly treated Maryland as having continuing jurisdiction and later did communicate with Puerto Rico during the proceedings |
| Whether Maryland abused discretion declining to cede jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds | Puerto Rico was more convenient and better able to protect Cabrera and the child; Maryland should have declined | Maryland is the home state; Puerto Rican proceedings were obtained after Cabrera absconded and lacked procedural parity; Maryland court properly considered statutory factors | No abuse of discretion; judge considered statutory factors and reasonably declined to relinquish jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Friedetzky v. Hsia, 223 Md. App. 723 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (discussing UCCJEA adoption and effect)
- Miller v. Mathias, 428 Md. 419 (Md. 2012) (UCCJEA provides exclusive jurisdictional basis and deters abductions)
- Cronin v. Camilleri, 101 Md. App. 699 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1994) (protective order proceeding constituted a custody proceeding under UCCJA/UCCJEA)
- Krebs v. Krebs, 183 Md. App. 102 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008) (ex parte emergency pendente lite custody order rendered moot by subsequent plenary hearing)
- Nnoli v. Nnoli, 389 Md. 315 (Md. 2005) (a body attachment order is not an immediately appealable final order)
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (Md. 2003) (standards for abuse of discretion in family‑law forum decisions)
- Broadway v. State, 202 Md. App. 464 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) (body attachment not appealable under collateral‑order doctrine until served)