Hardisty v. Salerno

Per Curiam. This case is before us on appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County continuing custody of four children in the appellee, their father, and finding appellant, their mother, in contempt of court for violating the custody decree. On July 14, 1965, the father was granted a divorce from the mother on grounds of adultery. The divorce decree awarded custody of the couple’s four children to the father.

On April 25, 1966, the circuit court modified its decree and allowed the appellant Saturday visitation rights. In October, 1966, these rights were extended to include Friday and Saturday. During one of these visitation periods, the appellant decided not to return the children to the appellee. She believed that the appellee had administered a severe beating to them and feared for their safety.

She had the father arrested on assault charges and he was found guilty of this charge in the People’s Court of Prince George’s County. On August 28, 1968, the appellee filed a petition asking the court to find the mother in contempt for refusing to obey the custody decree. The mother filed a bill asking that the custody decree be reconsidered. After a hearing, Judge Mathias found the mother in contempt for failing to return the children and continued the custody of the children in the father.

The appellant raises two issues before us on appeal. The first is whether the chancellor erred in awarding ⁴³⁸ custody to the appellee. The second issue is whether the court must hear evidence concerning events which occurred prior to the present custody decree. We will discuss these issues in order.

The legal standard for determining custody is well settled in Maryland. As we stated in Shanbarker v. Dalton, 251 Md. 252, 257 , 247 A. 2d 278 (1968), “It is a well established principle of law in Maryland that what is best for the child is the determining factor in custody cases.” See also Breault v. Breault, 250 Md. 173 , 242 A. 2d 116 (1968); Heaver v. Bradley, 244 Md. 233 , 223 A. 2d 568 (1966); Andrews v. Andrews, 242 Md. 143 , 218 A. 2d 194 (1966); and Holcomb v. Holcomb, 255 Md. 86 , 256 A. 2d 886 (1969). Appellant contends that an assault conviction required a finding that continued custody in appellee is not in the best interests of the child. However, we have often held that all factors- must be considered in order to determine who will best serve the child’s interests.

See Shanbarker v. Dalton supra. A finding of assault need be no more conclusive upon the issue than a finding of adultery. See Orndoff v. Orndoff, 252 Md. 519 , 250 A. 2d 627 (1969); Pratt v. Pratt, 245 Md. 716 , 228 A. 2d 611 (1967); and Cornwell v. Cornwell, 244 Md. 674 , 224 A. 2d 870 (1966). In making a custody determination the Court will give great weight to the chancellor’s findings of fact.

The reason for this is well stated by Judge Collins in Sibley v. Sibley, 187 Md. 358, 362 , 50 A. 2d 128 (1946): “We see none of the parties. The chancellor had the parties and the witnesses before him. He was able to observe their demeanor and general appearance while on the stand, to judge of their character, probable attitude toward and their probable influence over the infant.” In the present case it seems clear from the testimony of the arresting officer and appellee’s maid that the beating was in no way severe or brutal. Judge Mathias seemed to think the children needed the discipline and