Michael Gerald D. v. Roseann B.
105 A.3d 578
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Michael D. and Roseann B. divorced after separation; their daughter Emily (born 2005) lived primarily with mother after 2012; father had limited time with child due to long FBI commute.
- New Jersey court ordered temporary supervised visits at a courthouse (alternate Saturdays) after mother obtained a TRO and consent order; supervised visitation ran Sept 2012–June 2013.
- In March–September 2013 Emily disclosed to her mother, a counselor, and a custody evaluator that her father played a "bug game" touching her chest, vagina, and buttocks during visits and that, earlier while living in Annapolis, he had her touch his penis and penetrated her sometimes.
- Multiple child-protection investigations produced mixed findings (New Jersey: "unfounded;" Maryland investigations: one "ruled out" neglect, one "unsubstantiated," a later MD DSS report attached post-judgment "ruled out" sexual abuse); custody evaluator and trial court found Emily credible.
- Anne Arundel Circuit Court, applying a preponderance standard, found reasonable grounds to believe sexual abuse occurred under Fam. Law § 9-101, denied father custody and all visitation (including supervised), and concluded supervised contact would not assure Emily’s safety.
- On appeal, father argued the court should have required clear and convincing proof before denying all visitation and that the court abused its discretion by refusing supervised visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Michael) | Defendant's Argument (Roseann/Court below) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof under Fam. Law § 9-101 to deny all visitation | Denial of all visitation requires clear and convincing evidence of abuse | § 9-101 requires only "reasonable grounds to believe," interpreted as preponderance | Preponderance (reasonable grounds) is sufficient; court did not err |
| Whether court properly found reasonable grounds that abuse occurred | Father denied or challenged credibility of allegations | Court found child credible, evaluator corroborated, mixed agency reports notwithstanding | Court’s credibility findings supported conclusion of reasonable grounds |
| Whether supervised visitation should have been ordered | At minimum, supervised visitation should be allowed rather than total denial | Visitation occurred (per allegations) even under supervision; court found supervised contact unsafe | Court did not abuse discretion in denying supervised visitation given risk and credibility findings |
| Standard for reopening/modifying visitation if circumstances change | Father implied future relief should be available only upon high burden | Statute does not address post-denial procedures; modification is available on changed circumstances | Court noted modification avenue exists; statute governs initial denial only |
Key Cases Cited
- Volodarsky v. Tarachanskaya, 397 Md. 291 (holds preponderance standard governs whether reasonable grounds exist under § 9-101)
- Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204 (parental visitation right not absolute; may be restricted or denied to protect child)
- In re Adoption No. 12612, 353 Md. 209 (FL § 9-101 requires attention to child safety when abuse/neglect alleged)
- In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687 (if court cannot find no likelihood of further abuse, custody/unsupervised visitation must be denied under § 9-101)
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility and child-welfare determinations)
- Baldwin v. Baynard, 215 Md. App. 82 (best interests of the child is the overarching consideration in custody/visitation disputes)