.webp)
.png)
Many litigants in family law cases often forget that defeat at the trial court level doesn’t necessarily mean defeat altogether. This is because, in most instances, litigants who fail to achieve their desired result at the trial court level can appeal their ruling and send the case to the appellate level for review. When a case is brought before an appellate court, the judge responsible for reviewing it follows specific standards in order to evaluate the issues that have been presented. In other words, the review is informed by preestablished rules which assist the judge in his or her analysis.
In the case of K.M. v. C.D. (2017), a procedural error at the trial court level was reviewed by an appellate judge here in Maryland, and the appellate judge ultimately decided to let the error stand. Why might that happen? Let’s look at this case in detail.
Summary of K.M v. C.D. (2017)
In this case, the couple were never married, but conceived two children together during their relationship; the youngest child was born in 2010, and by 2013, the father went to court to attempt to acquire custody. The mother also responded and attempted to achieve joint custody. The father contended that the mother’s personal habits rendered her ineffective as a parent to the children, while the mother contended that her current behaviors indicated good fitness as a parent. There was no dispute that, at points in the past, the mother displayed behavior which indicated lack of readiness to be a good parent; the mother, for instance, had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues.
At the trial court, the mother presented a piece of evidence – a note from her therapist – regarding her current emotional condition. The father attempted to block this evidence as inadmissible hearsay, but the trial court judge allowed the note. The case went to the appellate court for review, and the mother won when the appellate judge allowed the error to remain uncorrected: the appellate didn’t overrule the trial court decision, even though the appellate judge conceded that the note was indeed inadmissible hearsay.
The Standard for Reviewing Errors
A curious reader might ask: why didn’t the appellate judge overturn the trial court ruling given the fact that the note should not have been allowed into evidence? The answer is that the appellate judge followed the appropriate standard of review, and because he followed that standard he came to the most logical conclusion. Although the note was inadmissible hearsay, the appellate judge determined that the note hadn’t impacted the trial court decision to any substantial degree. When the appellate court judge in Maryland reviews a procedural error, such as the one in this case, the standard of review states that an error which had no effect on the lower court ruling needn’t be overturned out of necessity. In other words, if the error didn’t actually impact the ruling, the error may “stand” as though it didn’t occur. During the trial, the mother testified regarding her mental status and emotional condition, and the note from the therapist essentially just affirmed her own testimony. The appellate judge concluded that, given these facts, the inadmissible note didn’t affect the ruling. The mother ended up “winning” the appellate court, even though the trial court judge did erroneously allow the note.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Resources
If you would like to know more, or have a current issue which needs attention, don’t hesitate to reach out to one of the leading attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-9311.
.png)
