Sumpter v. Sumpter
427 Md. 668
Md.2012Background
- 2010 divorce/custody dispute; custody-investigation report ordered by the circuit court
- Baltimore City circuit policy allegedly restricted counsel to viewing a single copy in the clerk’s office, with only handwritten notes permitted
- Report completed one week before merits hearing; Mother’s counsel had ~90 minutes access prior to hearing
- Report comprises 164 pages (17 pages of findings, 147 appendices) containing sensitive information
- Circuit court denied pre-hearing copy; at hearing, access was limited; report admitted into evidence; divorce awarded to Father
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed; certiorari granted; court remands for record supplementation to clarify policy and its justification
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre-trial access policy violated due process | Mother argues the policy denied meaningful opportunity to review/effectively challenge the report | Baltimore City contends the policy protects privacy and is a permissible court-wide practice | Remanded for supplementation; no final ruling on policy validity |
| Whether the record is sufficient to assess the policy's validity and alternatives | Record is too sparse to determine origin, rationale, or alternatives | Trial court relied on privacy and practical safeguards; record lacks detail | Remanded to supplement record with full contours, justification, and alternatives |
| Whether the court should address the policy under Maryland access to court records rules | Access to confidential reports should be allowed for counsel of record | Confidentiality safeguards justify restricted access | Await appellate record supplementation before deciding, pending AG amicus consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Denningham v. Denningham, 49 Md.App. 328 (Md. Ct. App. 1981) (due process when access to custody report is denied)
- Balt. Sun Co. v. Colbert, 323 Md. 290 (1991) (principles for sealing/limiting court records with specific findings)
- Balt. Sun v. Thanos, 92 Md.App. 227 (Md. Ct. App. 1992) (seals/access limits to sentencing or confidential records; need for narrow tailoring)
- Colbert (Balt. Sun Co. v. Colbert), 323 Md. 290 (1991) (see above)
- Falik v. Hornage, 413 Md. 163 (Md. 2010) (confidentiality safeguards and professional conduct considerations)
- Nagle v. Hooks, 296 Md. 123 (Md. 1983) (best-interest counsel in CINA cases and confidentiality)