Holbrook v. Newell

Kehoe, J. The issue in this appeal is whether a circuit court has jurisdiction to resolve a child custody dispute between unmarried parents when the parents are living together. In Ricketts v. Ricketts, 393 Md. 479, 501 , 903 A.2d 857 (2006), the Court of Appeals held that a court had such jurisdiction in a divorce action even if the parents were sharing the same household and even if the court declined to grant a divorce. We will extend the holding of Ricketts to cases where the parents are unmarried and reverse a judgment of the Circuit Court for Cecil County. Background James Ricky Holbrook and Hannah Newell are the biological parents of K., a minor child.

In January 2015, the circuit court entered a consent order which, in addition to other relief, awarded the parties joint custody of K. In September 2015, Mr. Holbrook filed a motion to modify the custody provisions of the earlier order. While that motion was pending, Mr. Holbrook filed an ex parte request for custody, in which he asserted that Ms. Newell was unable to care for K., and that K. had been residing exclusively with him for several months because Ms. Newell did not have a fixed address. The circuit court held a hearing on this petition on May 16, 2016. The first witness at the hearing was Ms. Newell’s mother.

She testified that Ms. Newell was unable to care adequately for K. because of a psychological condition. In his own testimony, Mr. Holbrook stated that K. and Ms. Newell were residing ⁴⁵³ with him so that he could care for K., and so that K. and her mother would have a place to live while Ms. Newell seeks treatment for her health problems. The circuit court then recessed. When proceedings resumed, the following occurred: THE COURT: Returning on the record of Hannah Newell versus Ricky James Holbrook, Junior ....

We are conducting an expedited hearing on Pendente Lite Custody. And the last testimony that I heard from Mr. Holbrook is that the parties are residing together. Is that correct, [appellant’s counsel]? [Appellant’s Counsel]: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, I don’t believe that the Court has jurisdiction to continue a hearing in this matter.

I’m going to dismiss the petition. Mr. Holbrook filed a motion for reconsideration, in which he presented the same arguments as he does to this Court. The circuit court denied the motion. This timely appeal followed.

Analysis The circuit court dismissed the custody petition on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties were living in the same household. Whether the court’s interpretation of its inherent and statutory authority was correct is a legal question, which we review de novo. Cabrera v. Mercado, 230 Md.App. 37, 80 , 146 A.3d 567 (2016). There are two relevant statutes.

The first is § 5—203(d)(1) of the Family Law Article (1984, 2012 Repl. Vol.) (“FL”), which provides that, “if the parents live apart, a court may award custody to either parent or joint custody to both parents.” The second statute is FL § 1-201, which states in pertinent part: (b) An equity court has jurisdiction over: [[Image here]] (5) custody or guardianship of a child except for a child who is under the jurisdiction of any juvenile court and who previously has been adjudicated to be a child in need of assistance; ⁴⁵⁴ (6) visitation of a child; [[Image here]] (c) In exercising its jurisdiction over the custody, guardianship, visitation, or support of a child, an equity court may: (1) direct who shall have the custody or guardianship of a child, pendente lite or permanently; (2) determine who shall have visitation rights to a child; [[Image here]] Read together, the two statutes are admittedly ambiguous— § 5—203(d) authorizes a court to decide custody issues “if the parents live apart,” whereas § l-201(b) contains no such limitation. The Court of Appeals recognized and resolved this ambiguity in Ricketts v. Ricketts, 393 Md. 479, 501 , 903 A.2d 857 (2006). In that case, the Court held that a circuit court could decide custody even if the parties to a divorce action were living in the same household, and even if the court declined to grant a judgment of divorce.

At the heart of the Court’s analysis is the long-established principle that a court’s authority to decide issues of