.webp)
.png)
Maryland society is rapidly changing in various ways, just like the rest of society throughout the nation. Family law in particular has seen all sorts of new developments in recent years; some of these developments have involved issues pertaining to gender and sexuality. Maryland law will continue to evolve and adjust in tandem with these new developments, as has always been the case throughout history. This recent evolution in Maryland law is visible in how courts review and grant protective orders, for example.
When making protective order determinations, Maryland courts have begun using facts which may not have been as frequently used in the past. For instance, Maryland courts now may grant a protective order to prevent mental cruelty, or mental abuse, in the form of anti-transgenderism or homophobic commentary.
This recently occurred in the case of C.M. v. J.M. (2023). In this case, a court was compelled to grant a protective order to prevent mental abuse of a child (from a parent). Let’s examine this case in detail.
Facts of the Case
The couple in this case were married for approximately five years before the divorce petition was filed in 2012. The couple had two children, and at some point one of the children began suspecting that he might be homosexual, or possibly inclined to changing his gender (his natural gender was male). Apparently, the father possessed a less than stellar view of his son’s situation, and expressed disapproval of the fact that he might not be heterosexual on multiple occasions. The son received text messages and other communications which provided evidence of the father’s attitude.
When the initial custody order was implemented, the father and mother shared joint physical custody, with the father having the children on alternating weekends. After the mother learned about the relationship between the father and the son, she saw that the son was suffering mental injuries as a consequence of the father’s behavior. In response, the mother obtained a protective order which restricted the communication between the father and son. The child was 13 years old at the time when the father was restrained by the protective order.
The father claimed that the trial court had granted this protective order based on insufficient evidence; consequently, the father appealed and the case went before the appellate division for review.
Outcome & Discussion
There were multiple legal issues involved in the case, but the primary issue was simply the sufficiency of the evidence used to support the protective order. The father’s main argument was that the verbal or electronic communications were not sufficient evidence to warrant to protective order. Based on the father’s communications, the father clearly showed views which conflicted with his son’s current situation; there was also evidence that the son had suffered psychologically as a result of his father’s influence. After considering the totality of the facts, the appellate division determined that there had been sufficient evidence on which to grant the protective order.
Again, in some ways, this case demonstrates the evolving nature of the law, and how law is responding to changes in society. Here, we have electronic evidence of a certain bias, and this was ultimately seen as satisfactory for the purposes of the protective order; these are relatively new developments, and so we can see how the legal edifice adapts and changes along with the greater changes in the wider society.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you would like more information on protective or restraining orders in Maryland, child custody issues in Maryland law, or another related matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
