153 A.3d 183
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- James R. Holbrook and Hannah Newell are the biological parents of a minor child, K.; the circuit court entered a 2015 consent order awarding them joint custody.
- In Sept. 2015 Holbrook filed a motion to modify custody; while pending he filed an ex parte petition alleging Newell could not care for K and that the child had been living exclusively with Holbrook.
- At the May 16, 2016 expedited pendente lite custody hearing both parties were living together in the same household; testimony suggested Newell had psychological issues and was staying with Holbrook so he could care for K.
- The circuit court dismissed Holbrook’s petition, concluding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the parents were residing together under the same roof.
- Holbrook moved for reconsideration; the court denied it and Holbrook appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Holbrook’s Argument | Newell’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to decide custody when unmarried parents are living together | A court retains jurisdiction to decide custody (including pendente lite) even if parents live together; Ricketts supports jurisdiction based on inherent power to protect child welfare | Court below: living together deprives court of jurisdiction under FL § 5-203(d)(1) limiting awards to parents who live apart | Reversed: court has jurisdiction to decide custody despite parents residing together; Ricketts extended to unmarried parents |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricketts v. Ricketts, 393 Md. 479 (Court of Appeals 2006) (equity courts retain jurisdiction to determine custody even if parents live together and divorce is not granted)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290 (1986) (custody power is inherent to courts and not solely statutory)
- Glading v. Furman, 282 Md. 200 (1978) (discussing inherent equity jurisdiction over minors)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 228 Md. 610 (1962) (early recognition of courts’ inherent custody authority)
- Barnard v. Barnard, 157 Md. 264 (1929) (statutory language reflecting courts’ power to determine custody without regard to parental marital status)
- Santo v. Santo, 448 Md. 620 (2016) (interpretation of FL § 5-203: courts’ inherent custody power should be construed as not being narrowly limited by statute)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 342 Md. 294 (1996) (distinguishing "living under the same roof" from "cohabitation")