Santo v. Santo

WATTS, J., concurring, in which BATTAGLIA, J., joins. Respectfully, I concur and write separately to elaborate on the majority opinion in one respect only. I agree with the Majority that the holding in Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290 , 508 A.2d 964 (1986) does not act as a bar to joint custody where the parties are unable to effectively communicate. See Maj.

Op. at 630-31, 645-46, 141 A.3d at 79-80, 88-89. In Taylor , this Court expressly acknowledged that in unusual cases joint custody may be appropriate despite parents’ inability to effectively communicate with each other. In Taylor, id. at 307 , 508 A.2d at 972 , we explained: In the unusual case where the trial [court] 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 [court] must articulate fully the reasons that support that conclusion. (Emphasis added).

As Taylor permits, here, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County ordered joint legal custody, notwithstanding evidence of the parties’ inability to effectively communicate with each other. Stated otherwise, the evidence established that this was the unusual case that warranted such a result, and the trial court fully articulated the reasons supporting that conclusion. Taylor has served