Maryland Courts follow the factors outlined in this case to determine joint legal and shared physical custody:

Capacity of the Parents to Communicate and to Reach Shared Decisions Affecting the Child’s Welfare. This is clearly the most important factor in the determination of whether an award of joint legal custody is appropriate, and is relevant as well to a consideration of shared physical custody. Rarely, if ever, should joint legal custody be awarded in the absence of a record of mature conduct on the part of the parents evidencing an ability to effectively communicate with each other concerning the best interest of the child, and then only when it is possible to make a finding of a strong potential for such conduct in the future.

With few exceptions, courts and commentators agree that joint custody is a viable option only for parents who are able and willing to cooperate with one another in making decisions for their child.

When the evidence discloses severely embittered parents and a relationship marked by dispute, acrimony, and a failure of rational communication, there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by conditioning the making of decisions affecting the child’s welfare upon the mutual agreement of the parties. Even in the absence of bitterness or inability to communicate, if the evidence discloses the parents do not share parenting values, and each insists on adhering to irreconcilable theories of child-rearing, joint legal custody is not appropriate. The parents need not agree on every aspect of parenting, but their views should not be so widely divergent or so inflexibly maintained as to forecast the probability of continuing disagreement on important matters.

The Courts will examine the sense of respect for one another as parents, despite the disappointment in each other as marriage partners. The fact that each can appreciate the value of the other to the child, and is sensitive to the possible loss of a parent-child relationship is important.  There must be a demonstrated capacity to tolerate the minor differences that existed and to distinguish the important from the unimportant ones. The parents should be able to relinquish control and not interfere in the other parent’s relationship with the child. They should each be personally flexible and able to accommodate to the needs of the arrangement, the child, and even to the other parent. It was important that each parent had a sense of self-esteem as a parent in his or her own right in order to maintain the balance in the co-parental relationship.

Ordinarily the best evidence of compatibility with this criterion will be the past conduct or “track record” of the parties. We recognize, however, that the tensions of separation and litigation will sometimes produce bitterness and lack of ability to cooperate or agree. The trial judge will have to evaluate whether this is a temporary condition, very likely to abate upon resolution of the issues, or whether it is more permanent in nature. Only where the evidence is strong in support of a finding of the existence of a significant potential for compliance with this criterion should joint legal custody be granted. Blind hope that a joint custody agreement will succeed, or that forcing the responsibility of joint decision-making upon the warring parents will bring peace, is not acceptable. In the unusual case where the trial judge concludes that joint legal custody is appropriate notwithstanding the absence of a “track record” of willingness and ability on the part of the parents to cooperate in making decisions dealing with the child’s welfare, the trial judge must articulate fully the reasons that support that conclusion.

Willingness of Parents to Share Custody. Generally, the parents should be willing to undertake joint custody or it should not be ordered. We are asked by Appellant, and by the Women’s Legal Defense Fund as amicus curiae, to hold that a trial judge may never order joint legal custody over the objection of one parent. They argue, with some force, that unwillingness on the part of one parent to share custody inevitably presages intransigence or inability to cooperate in making decisions affecting the welfare of the child. While we agree that the absence of an express willingness on the part of the parents to accept a joint custody arrangement is a strong indicator that joint legal custody is contraindicated, we are unwilling to fashion a hard and fast rule that would have the effect of granting to either parent veto power over the possibility of a joint custody award. A caring parent, believing that sole custody is in the best interest of the child, may forcefully advance that position throughout the litigation but be willing and able to fully participate in a joint custody arrangement if that is the considered decision of the court.

Fitness of Parents. The psychological and physical capabilities of both parents must be considered, although the determination may vary depending upon whether a parent is being evaluated for fitness for legal custody or for physical custody. A parent may be fit for one type of custody but not the other, or neither, or both.

Relationship Established Between the Child and Each Parent. When both parents are seen by the child as a source of security and love, there is a favorable climate for joint custody. On the other hand, joint custody may be inappropriate when opposed by the child, or when there are indications that the psychological or emotional needs of the child would suffer under a joint custody arrangement.

Preference of the Child. The reasonable preference of a child of suitable age and discretion should be considered. In addition to being sensitive to the possible presence of the “lollipop” or “rescue” syndromes, the trial judge must also recognize that children often experience a strong desire to see separated parents reunited, and this motivation may produce an unrealistic preference for joint custody.

The so-called “lollipop syndrome” relates to the situation where one parent in a custody battle may shower the child with gifts and pleasant times, and impose no discipline in order to win the child’s preference. The “rescue syndrome” relates to the expression of preference by a child for the parent perceived by the child to be the “weaker” of the two, in the belief that the stronger parent will survive in any event, but the weaker parent needs the child.

Potential Disruption of Child’s Social and School Life. Joint physical custody may seriously disrupt the social and school life of a child when each parent has the child for half the year, and the homes are not in close proximity to one another. In such cases the amount of time each parent has physical custody may be adjusted without interfering with the concept of continued joint custody.

Geographic Proximity of Parental Homes. Parental homes within the same school district offer certain advantages in a joint custody situation. The child may enjoy joint physical custody without changing schools or being required to constantly change a circle of friends, and the parents may find proximity a benefit in discussing the decisions to be made concerning the child. However, distance is not a bar, and when the distance between homes is great, a joint custody arrangement may offer the only practical way to preserve to the child a meaningful relationship with each parent. Depending upon the age and emotional maturity of the child, similarity of the respective home environments may be desired, or exposure to dissimilar environments, cultures and opportunities for learning may be indicated.

Demands of Parental Employment. In some situations, joint physical custody will be appropriate only if the work hours of the parents are different, or there is flexibility in the demands of the employment of each.

Age and Number of Children. The factor of age obviously interrelates with other factors already discussed. The number of children involved may pose practical difficulties to a joint custody arrangement, but on the other hand may be helpful to both parents in bringing about a sharing of the pressures of single family parenting of a number of children. In rare cases, split custody may be preferred over sole or joint custody.

Sincerity of Parents’ Request. A number of interested observers have opposed the concept of joint custody absent mutual agreement on the ground that one spouse may interpose a demand for joint custody solely to gain bargaining leverage over the other in extracting favorable alimony, child support or property concessions. Drawing upon the reasoning of King Solomon writers have suggested that a parent truly interested in the welfare of a child will give up almost anything to protect the child, and thus the threat of enforced joint custody can be used to extract unwarranted concessions. While the remedy they suggest-denial of joint custody in the absence of parental agreement-is unnecessarily restrictive, we acknowledge the legitimacy of these concerns and highlight the necessity to carefully examine the motives and sincerity of each parent.

Financial Status of the Parents. Joint physical custody imposes financial burdens upon the parents because of the necessity of maintaining two homes for the child, with separate furnishings and often separate toys, equipment, and clothing.

Impact on State or Federal Assistance. Aid to families with dependent children and eligibility for medical assistance may be affected by the award of joint custody. The necessary showing of “absence” of a parent may be challenged when there is an award of joint custody that includes shared physical custody.  Although the primary focus is properly upon the best interest of the child, it is also appropriate to consider the salutary effect that joint custody may have on the parents, not only because their feelings and interests are worthy of consideration, but also because their improved self-image as parents is likely to redound to the ultimate benefit of the child.

Other Factors. The enumeration of factors appropriate for consideration in a joint custody case is not intended to be all-inclusive, and a trial judge should consider all other circumstances that reasonably relate to the issue. The resolution of a custody dispute continues to be one of the most difficult and demanding tasks of a trial judge. It requires thorough consideration of multiple and varied circumstances, full knowledge of the available options, including the positive and negative aspects of various custodial arrangements, and a careful recitation of the facts and conclusions that support the solution ultimately selected.

Related posts:

1. It’s All About The Children’s Best Interest – Not The Parents
2. Maryland Online Child Support Calculator
3. A Plea to Parents from a Divorce Lawyer: Leave Your Kids Out of It!

A court, in order to determine custody, must first determine the best interest of the child. The Maryland Court of Appeals has stated that “[W]hen the custody of children is the question … the best interest of the children is the paramount fact. Rights of father and mother sink into insignificance before that.” Kartman v. Kartman, 163 Md. 19, 22,161 A. 269 (1932). The absolute obligation on the trial judge to undertake a thorough examination of all possible factors before determining child custody was forcefully set out by Judge McAuliffe in Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290, 303, 508 A.2d 964 (1986):

Formula or computer solutions in child custody matters are impossible because of the unique character of each case, and the subjective nature of the evaluations and decisions that must be made. At best we can discuss the major factors that should be considered in determining whether joint custody is appropriate, but in doing so we recognize that none has talismanic qualities, and that no single list of criteria will satisfy the demands of every case. We emphasize that in any child custody case, the paramount concern is the best interest of the child. …The best interest of the child is therefore not considered as one of many factors, but as the objective to which virtually all other factors speak.

The Taylor Court detailed the two basic forms of custody.  These two forms are:

Legal custody carries with it the right and obligation to make long range decisions involving education, religious training, discipline, medical care, and other matters of major significance concerning the child’s life and welfare. Joint legal custody means that both parents have an equal voice in making those decisions, and neither parent’s rights are superior to the other.

Physical custody, on the other hand, means the right and obligation to provide a home for the child and to make the day-to-day decisions required during the time the child is actually with the parent having such custody.

Each type of custody can be broken down into either joint or sole.  Therefore, joint legal custody means that each parent has the right to share in longer-range decision-making including education, religious training, medical care and other matters of significance regarding their children.  Sole legal custody gives that right to only one parent.  Joint physical custody means that the child or children share their time between the parents.  There does not have to be an equal sharing of time in order to qualify as joint physical custody.

Taylor laid out fourteen factors for a court to consider in an award of joint custody:

1. Capacity of the parents to communicate and to reach share decisions affecting the child’s welfare;
2. Willingness of parents to share custody;
3. Fitness of parents;
4. Relationship established between the child and each parent;
5. Preference of the child;
6. Potential disruption of child’s social and school life;
7. Geographic proximity of parental homes;
8. Demands of Parental Employment;
9. Age and number of children;
10. Sincerity of parents’ request;
11. Financial status of the parents;
12. Impact on state or federal assistance;
13. Benefit to parents; and;
14. Other factors.

Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290, 303, 508 A.2d 964 (1986).

In Montgomery County v. Sanders, 38 Md. App. 406, 419, 381 A.2d 1154 (1977), Chief Judge Gilbert described what a child custody determination unavoidably calls for on the part of the judge:

Present methods for determining a child’s best interest are time-consuming; involve a multitude of intangible factors that ofttimes are ambiguous. The best interest standard is an amorphous notion, varying with each individual case, and resulting in its being open to attack as little more than judicial prognostication. The fact finder is called upon to evaluate the child’s life chances in each of the homes competing for custody and then to predict with whom the child will be better off in the future.

Judge Gilbert went on to catalogue some of the myriad factors that must be considered:

“What critics of the “judicial prognostication” overlook is that the court examines numerous factors and weighs the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative environments. The criteria for judicial determination includes, but is not limited to:

1. Fitness of the parents;
2. Character and reputation of the parties;
3. Desire of the natural parents and agreements between the parties;
4. Potentiality of maintaining natural family relations;
5. Preference of the child;
6. Material opportunities affecting the future life of the child;
7. Age, health and sex of the child;
8. Residences of parents and opportunity for visitation;
9. Length of separation from the natural parents, and;
10. Prior voluntary abandonment or surrender.

Montgomery County v. Sanders, 38 Md. App. 406, 420, 381 A.2d 1154 (1977).

Child custody cases require an experienced local family law lawyer. Family law lawyers concentrate their practices solely in family law and are experienced in successfully presenting the proper evidence to the Judge. Thus, when deciding upon proper representation in litigating the custody of your child (or of your children), it is also incumbent upon you, as a parent, to consider what is in their “best interest.” This is not a time to cut corners.

Related posts:

1. Solomon’s Dilemma: How do we Split the Babies?
2. A Plea to Parents from a Divorce Lawyer: Leave Your Kids Out of It!
3. Maryland Online Child Support Calculator