Meyr v. Meyr, 195 Md. App. 524

Circuit Court awarded limited divorce on Feb. 1, 2010, with disputed visitation and best-interest attorney (BIA) fees; Meyr appeals challenging BIA authority, visitation specificity, and fees.
Pendente lite orders in 2009-2010 provided visitation, alimony, and appointment of a children’s attorney; parties later divided over supervised vs. unsupervised visitation.
Cynthia Browne, a licensed family therapist, reported that the children were being alienated from the mother and recommended therapy and continued supervision; interviews of the children occurred in chambers with the BIA present.
The court ordered ongoing family reunification therapy coordinated by the BIA, and gave the BIA power to modify the mother’s access schedule, subject to court supervision; the order was later amended to remove some of those delegated powers.
On Feb. 16 and Mar. 17, 2010, the court issued amended custody orders removing some BIA authorities but preserving coordination of therapy and interim visitation; Meyr appealed the February 2010 orders and the April 2010 suit-money order.
On appeal, the court reverses the judgment ordering Meyr to pay the best-interest attorney’s fees, while affirming the remainder of the circuit court’s orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court improperly delegate custody decisions to a non-judicial actor?	Meyr argues delegation of therapy duration to the BIA usurps judicial power.	Meyr/Ms. Meta contend the BIA role is ancillary, with court supervision retained.	No improper delegation; therapy coordination ancillary and subject to court supervision.
Did the trial court abuse discretion by not providing a definite visitation schedule?	Meyr asserts Maryland law requires a fixed day/time when parents cannot agree.	Meyr asserts flexibility is acceptable and interim arrangement was appropriate.	No abuse; interim schedule based on agreed interim plan, with flexibility permitted.
Was it an abuse of discretion to order Meyr to pay all costs for the best-interests attorney and advance Ms. Meyr’s appellate fees?	Meyr contends the court failed to analyze financial status/needs and ability to pay.	Meyr argues the court appropriately considered finances and fault for discord; fees justified.	Partially reversed: fee-shifting for the best-interest attorney reversed; other fee rulings affirmed; award to be set upon submission of the attorney’s bill.

In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687 (2001) (court may not delegate custody/visitation decision-making to non-judicial actors)
Shapiro v. Shapiro, 54 Md. App. 477 (1983) (equity courts retain custody/visitation jurisdiction; no delegation to others)
Yates v. Yates, 963 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (parenting coordinator as ancillary to central custody decisions; reviewable by court)
In re Caya B., 153 Md. App. 63 (2003) (appellate review of custody/visitation decisions; limits on delegation)
Leary v. Leary, 97 Md. App. 26 (1993) (flexibility in visitation orders; balance between structure and adaptability)