Paltrow v. Paltrow

Cole, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We are asked to deny full faith and credit to a decree from a foreign court in order that the Circuit Court for Baltimore County may entertain a petition for child custody filed by a Maryland resident. We decline to do so and shall explain. Marie and Kenneth Paltrow, appellant and appellee, were divorced in Oregon on September 1, 1972, with Mrs. Paltrow ²⁹² being awarded custody of their four minor children.

Approximately three years later, custody of the oldest child, a daughter, was transferred by agreement to Dr. Paltrow. Also at that time Mrs. Paltrow said that she wanted to move to Maryland. The Oregon court permitted her to retain custody of the three remaining children with the express condition that they were to be returned to Oregon for summer vacations. Soon after the move, the older son, Benjamin, was sent back to Oregon to live with his father; thus, two children remained in Maryland.

The first summer after the move, in 1976, Mrs. Paltrow ignored the court order and kept the two children in Maryland. On July 12,1976, Dr. Paltrow filed a motion in the original Oregon court asking that Mrs. Paltrow be held in contempt for failing to comply with the court order for visitation, and further requesting a transfer of custody from the mother to himself of the two children remaining in Maryland. On July 26, 1976, prior to disposition in Oregon, Mrs. Paltrow filed an action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County asking that court to assume jurisdiction over the children and continue custody of them in Mrs. Paltrow. A motion ne recipiatur was filed on behalf of Dr. Paltrow, stating that Mrs. Paltrow had failed to comply with certain requirements in the statute concerning the content of the initial pleading in a custody proceeding.

Judge Maguire, presiding in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, held a hearing on the matter on September 27,1976. Dr. Paltrow’s counsel argued that the pleading requirements were not merely a formality, but went to the heart of the question of jurisdiction. He said that jurisdiction was precluded because there was a pending proceeding in another state and he cited Maryland Code (1957,1973 Repl. Vol., 1977 Cum.

Supp.), Article 16, § 188. The court was told about the motion filed in Oregon on July 12, and was informed that Mrs. Paltrow had been served with notice of the action and was required to appear on October 15, 1976 in the Oregon court. Judge Maguire postponed a determination, requesting a certified copy of the docket entries from the Oregon court. ²⁹³ On October 8, 1976, Judge Maguire declined to hear the case based on Article 16, § 188. 1 A hearing was held in Oregon on October 15,1976, at which Mrs. Paltrow was represented by counsel. The court there found her in contempt, and transferred custody of the two remaining children in Maryland to their father in Oregon.

On April 20, 1977, Mrs. Paltrow filed a motion to modify the decree, after having filed an appeal from the October order. She then dismissed her appeal, on May 3, 1977, and on May 17, 1977 the Oregon court denied her motion to modify. On September 8,1977, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed Judge Maguire’s judgment, Paltrow v. Paltrow, 37 Md. App. 191 , 376 A. 2d 1134 (1977), and the Court of Appeals granted the petition for writ of certiorari on November 22, 1977. Both Maryland and Oregon have adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, 2 and the case at hand comes within its ambit.

The first section of the act deals with the purposes in enacting it, foremost among them being to “avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being.” 3 In light of this statement, we reiterate the law previously determined by this Court that child custody decrees rendered in other