.webp)
We are going to continue with our series on recent case summaries in family law here in Maryland. Here are two more summaries of (relatively) recent cases of family law.
Recent Case #1: Kreyhsig v. Montes (2015)
This recent case – Vanessa Kreyhsig v. Luis Montes – is not super recent, but it includes an important lesson that our readers should care to learn. Among other things, this case applied the principle of res judicata to a child custody matter, and this is a principle that readers ought to master. The principle of res judicata holds that cases which have been decided on their merits should not be heard by a court again. The only real exception to this principle is when there has been a material change in circumstances such that a new case is warranted i.e. a modification. In this case, the parents were never married and left out the father's last name on the child's birth certificate.Furthermore, the mother gave their child her last name rather than the father’s last name. The father filed many motions. Some were focused on modifying the custody arrangements and requesting the child’s surname be changed to his own.The court dismissed the father’s original petition to alter the surname. And then, the father filed another motion to alter the surname after this dismissal. The mother objected to the motion, arguing that res judicata applied. The court ultimately agreed with the mother and struck the father’s secondary motion down. In its reasoning, the court emphasized that there had been no material change in circumstances since the original motion was rejected and that this fell within reach of res judicata. The court carefully pointed out that if a change in circumstances occurred, this would’ve enabled the motion to be reviewed on its merits. The key issue was that nothing had occurred since the filing of the original motion.
Recent Case #2: In re: Dany G. (2015)
Again, as with the previous case, this case isn’t terribly recent. But it’s still important as it illustrates the necessity of obtaining competent counsel in certain family law proceedings. In the case of In re: Dany G., the court was faced with two issues: (1) which standard should apply to determine whether the subject child was neglected, and (2) whether it was in the child’s best interests to be reunited with his family (in his home country). In addressing the first issue, the appellate court (reviewing the trial court's findings) determined that an incorrect standard had been used and that under the correct standard (which was the standard used in Maryland law) the child had, in fact, been neglected.Furthermore, in addressing the second issue, the appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in finding that the child’s best interests would be served by returning to his home country (to be with his biological parents). The appellate court determined that, in order to be consistent with the child’s best interests, the trial court needed to take into account the child’s future interests. The trial court needed to determine with whom the child would be better off from the standpoint of his future. The court reversed the trial court's decision and sent the case back for review.This was a complex case, but one thing it demonstrates is the importance of conducting adequate research before moving forward. If the child's cousin had obtained legal representation, it would have been possible to avoid a headache.
Contact The Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you’d like to learn more, reach out to The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.
.png)
