McDermott v. Dougherty
385 Md. 320, 2005 Md. LEXIS 105, 869 A. 2d 751 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a custody dispute between a fit natural parent and a third party, a court must first find that the parent is unfit or that extraordinary circumstances exist that would be detrimental to the child before it may apply the 'best interests of the child' standard. A parent's employment requiring extended absences, for which suitable alternative care is arranged, does not, by itself, constitute such extraordinary circumstances.
Facts:
- Charles David McDermott and Laura A. Dougherty married, had a son named Patrick, and later separated.
- Mr. McDermott worked as a merchant marine, a profession that required him to be at sea for months-long intervals.
- Patrick's mother, Ms. Dougherty, had a history of alcohol-related trouble and was eventually incarcerated for a drinking and driving offense.
- Just before her incarceration, Ms. Dougherty signed a power of attorney giving her parents, Hugh and Marjorie Dougherty, authority to care for Patrick.
- While he was at sea, Mr. McDermott made arrangements for Patrick to stay with the Doughertys (the maternal grandparents).
- Upon returning from sea, Mr. McDermott sought to regain custody of Patrick, but the Doughertys contested it, believing Patrick needed more stability than his father's lifestyle could provide.
- Mr. McDermott maintained regular contact with his son, including flying him out to visit while he was on his ship.
- Both natural parents, Mr. McDermott and Ms. Dougherty, eventually opposed the grandparents having permanent custody, stating they were both able and willing to care for Patrick.
Procedural Posture:
- The maternal grandparents, the Doughertys, filed a complaint for third-party custody against the natural parents in the Circuit Court for Harford County.
- The circuit court awarded sole legal and physical custody to the Doughertys.
- The trial court's ruling was based on a finding that while the father, Mr. McDermott, was not unfit, his employment as a merchant marine constituted 'exceptional circumstances' detrimental to the child.
- Mr. McDermott, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (the intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the circuit court's decision.
- Mr. McDermott, as petitioner, then sought and was granted a Writ of Certiorari by the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) to review the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a fit parent's employment-related absences, which require him to be away for months at a time and necessitate temporary alternative care for his child, constitute 'exceptional circumstances' sufficient to overcome the parental preference presumption and award custody to a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Cathell, J.
No. A fit parent's employment-related absences, where appropriate arrangements for the child's care have been made, do not constitute 'exceptional circumstances' sufficient to award custody to a third party. In a custody dispute between a parent and a private third party, the court must first find parental unfitness or extraordinary circumstances that would be detrimental to the child before applying the 'best interest of the child' standard. The court reasoned that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children, creating a strong presumption that custody with a fit parent is in the child's best interest. To penalize a parent for the requirements of their lawful employment would lead to absurd results, potentially jeopardizing the custody rights of many parents in professions like the military or transportation. The circuit court erred by equating Mr. McDermott's job-related absences with exceptional circumstances and by failing to give proper weight to his established parental rights, especially since he was never found to be an unfit parent.
Concurring - Wilner, J.
I concur in the judgment but not the majority's reasoning. The court's extensive opinion unnecessarily complicates a clear legal standard established in Ross v. Hoffman, which holds that the 'best interest of the child' is always the determinative factor, but with a strong presumption in favor of a fit parent that can only be rebutted by a showing of unfitness or exceptional circumstances. This existing standard was sufficient to reverse the trial court's erroneous decision, which misapplied the 'exceptional circumstances' test by treating the father's job as a disqualifying factor. The majority's attempt to reframe this standard sows unnecessary confusion in an area of law that demands clarity.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and clarifies Maryland's alignment with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions regarding third-party custody disputes. It establishes a clear, two-step analytical framework that strongly protects the constitutional rights of fit parents. By holding that the 'best interest' analysis is triggered only after a finding of parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances, the court significantly raises the bar for third parties seeking custody. The ruling provides crucial protection for parents in professions requiring extensive travel, such as the military, ensuring that their lawful means of supporting their family cannot be used as the primary justification to sever their custodial rights. Future courts must now strictly adhere to this sequential analysis, preventing judges from simply comparing the homes of a fit parent and a third party to see which is 'better.'
