Drexler v. Bornman
217 Md. App. 355
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Cameron Wright, a seven-year-old, resided in Indiana with his mother when custody suit was filed in Maryland.
- In June 2012 Cameron and his mother relocated briefly to Maryland, then returned to Indiana after about a week, while the mother’s intent to stay in Maryland arose and subsided during the trip.
- Drexlers, Cameron’s Maryland maternal grandparents, filed for custody in Baltimore County in November 2012; Indiana was Cameron’s home state under the Act.
- Maryland court dismissed, ruling Indiana was Cameron’s home state and Maryland lacked jurisdiction; the Drexlers appealed.
- The issue is whether the week-long Maryland stay constitutes a temporary absence that preserves Indiana’s six-month residence requirement before filing the custody action.
- The court adopts a totality-of-the-circumstances approach to determine temporary absence under the Act and concludes Cameron’s Maryland visit was a temporary absence, making Indiana the home state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a week-long Maryland stay is a temporary absence | Drexlers: stay interrupted Indiana residence, breaking six-month requirement. | Bornman/Wright: stay was temporary absence; Indiana remained Cameron’s home state. | Yes; stay is temporary absence; Indiana remains home state. |
| What test should govern whether absence is temporary | Totality-of-circumstances test supports interruption by Maryland stay. | In other jurisdictions, various tests exist; totality-of-circumstances best. | Adopt totality-of-circumstances approach to assess temporary absence. |
| Impact of a parent’s intent on home-state determination | Mother’s intent to stay in Maryland supports non-continuous Indiana residence. | Intent is a factor but not controlling; time is primary. | Intent is relevant but not dispositive; time governs home-state finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Olson, 64 Md. App. 154 (1985) (brief summer absences did not defeat Maryland home state)
- Chick v. Chick, 164 N.C. App. 444 (2004) (three tests for home-state absence; totality approach favored)
- In re Marriage of Richardson, 255 Ill. App. 3d 1099 (1993) (totality approach caution against extended out-of-state stays)
- In re Marriage of Schoeffel, 268 Ill. App. 3d 839 (1994) (parent intent vs. time in home-state analysis)
- Gruber v. Gruber, 141 Md. App. 23 (2001) (no need to articulate a special test for temporary absence)
- In re S.M., 938 S.W.2d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (illustrates tests used in home-state determinations)
- Toland v. Futagi, 425 Md. 365 (2012) (uniform act alignment with PKP Act; home state concept)
- Howard v. Gish, 36 Md. App. 446 (1977) (purpose of UCCJEA to avoid jurisdictional conflict)