Langford v. Lewis

NANNETTE NICKOLE LANGFORD v. JAMES JULIAN LEWIS, SR.

No. 951

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2016

January 24, 2017

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case No. CAD15-01097

UNREPORTED

Graeff, Kehoe, Friedman, JJ.

Opinion by Graeff, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

On August 2, 2009, Nannette Nickole Langford, appellant, and James Julian Lewis, Sr., appellee, were married.¹ On December 30, 2015, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County issued a Judgment of Absolute Divorce, which ordered, inter alia, that the parties would have joint legal custody and shared physical of their two children. On February 9, 2016, the Judgment was docketed. On February 19, 2016, Ms. Langford filed a "Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment of Absolute Divorce Entered on February 9, 2016 or in the Alternative for a New Trial." On June 3, 2016, after the parties filed further motions, the circuit court issued an order (a) denying Ms. Langford's motion to alter or amend, (b) granting both parties' motions for contempt, and (c) granting, in part, Mr. Lewis' motion for modification of custody.

On appeal, Ms. Langford presents the following three questions for this Court's review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:

1. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion or commit legal error when it refused to amend the Judgment of Absolute Divorce or grant a new trial on custody given appellee's misrepresentations about his status as a registered sex offender?

2. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion or commit legal error when it awarded tie-breaking authority for decisions regarding the minor children to the appellee, a registered sex offender, on all issues except education?

3. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion or commit legal error when it awarded attorneys' fees to appellee after finding that appellant acted in bad faith in requesting that the lower court amend the judgment of divorceor for a new trial and for opposing appellee's request for sole custody of the minor children?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Background

On August 2, 2009, Ms. Langford and Mr. Lewis were married in Catonsville, Maryland. The parties had two children together: J.L., born in June 2005, and P.L., born in March 2011.

On December 16, 2013, Mr. Lewis, who at the time was a registered nurse, pled guilty in Ohio to gross sexual imposition and patient abuse, charges alleging that he sexually assaulted a woman during childbirth. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Mr. Lewis was required to relinquish his nursing licenses in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and he lost "the ability to work as a registered nurse" or be "reemployed at a health care position where Medicaid or Medicare is provided." Mr. Lewis subsequently sent a letter to the Maryland Board of Nursing, stating that he was surrendering his Maryland nursing license and affirming that he would "NEVER apply for reinstatement." On March 11, 2014, an Ohio court sentenced appellant to "a community control sanction for a period of two years," with the first 60 days of his sentence to be spent in a county jail, and the remainder on supervised probation. As a result of his sex offense conviction, Mr. Lewis was required to register as a sex offender.

Ms. Langford was not present at Mr. Lewis' plea hearing, but she was present at his sentencing. She later testified that Mr. Lewis told her that he was innocent and pled guiltyto protect his family from the hardships of trial. Ms. Langford stated that, at the time, she believed his claims of innocence because she "couldn't fathom that the man that [she] loved, [her] husband, would drug and molest a pregnant woman."

Divorce and Custody Proceedings

On January 26, 2015, Ms. Langford filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce and Custody. During trial, Mr. Lewis testified about his status as a probationer and sex offender. When asked about the terms of his probation, Mr. Lewis testified that he had to see his probation officer every month and report once every six months. Counsel then asked about other restrictions, and the following occurred:

[COUNSEL:] Okay. Do you have to register as a sex offender?

[MR. LEWIS:] Yes, I have to report once every six months.

[COUNSEL:] Okay. And so, I mean as a sex offender, . . . aren't there a lot of restrictions as far as your movement in the community?

[MR. LEWIS: ] Wherever my address is I do have to report where my address is, yes, ma'am.

[COUNSEL:] Okay. Are you, there's no restrictions about where you need, where you can live or anything like that?

[MR. LEWIS:] Not that I'm aware of.

[COUNSEL:] Okay. So the only, your probation, the only thing you have to do is report every six months and that's it?

[MR. LEWIS:] I have to report every six months; that's correct.

[COUNSEL:] Okay. And, okay, there's no restrictions about being near a schools or anything like that as a sex offender?

[MR. LEWIS:] Are you, are you --

[COUNSEL:] I'm asking, I don't know, I'm asking you.

[MR. LEWIS:] Not that I'm aware of.

[COUNSEL:] Okay. Okay. So that wasn't something that was part, that was in your probation paperwork or anything like that?

[MR. LEWIS:] Not that I'm aware of.

* * *

[COUNSEL:] When did you enter your I guess plea agreement with the State of Ohio?

[MR. LEWIS:] December 16, 2013.

[COUNSEL:] Okay. And as part of that agreement, wasn't your license revoked?

[MR. LEWIS:] It was not.

[COUNSEL:] It was not.

[MR. LEWIS:] It was not.

[COUNSEL:] Okay.

[MR. LEWIS:] I voluntarily surrendered my licenses, realizing -- per counsel, so that I could go back and get my license.

[COUNSEL:] But that was part of your agreement, correct?

[MR. LEWIS:] Was to surrender my license. I couldn't control how long the State took to accept that recension [sic], voluntary concession.

[COUNSEL:] Okay. So --

[MR. LEWIS:] They were not taken --

[COUNSEL:] -- so you voluntarily rescinded it in --

[MR. LEWIS:] In December.

[COUNSEL:] -- in December, correct?

[MR. LEWIS:] Correct. I was licensed in three States -- four, actually, and Maryland, my primary State, took the longest, actually it wasn't until two days before I went to sentencing that it was accepted and that was verypivotal, it needed to be accepted because that's what the part, I had until my sentencing date to have it on record that it was no longer valid.

Mr. Lewis and his counsel insisted throughout the trial that Mr. Lewis entered an Alford plea in his 2013 Ohio sex offense case.²

At the end of trial, the circuit court issued its ruling from the bench. It first granted Ms. Langford an absolute divorce from Mr. Lewis. With respect to the parties' children, the court granted the parties joint legal custody and shared physical custody. On December 30, 2015, the court issued a Judgment of Absolute Divorce, which reiterated in writing the court's earlier oral rulings. On February 9, 2016, the Judgment was entered onto the court's docket.

The Daycare Dispute

Following the November 2015 trial, a number of issues occurred regarding the care of the parties' children. One issue involved a dispute over who could pick up the parties' younger son, P.J., from daycare. On January 15, 2016, Crystal Zell, Mr. Lewis' girlfriend, went to pick up P.J. from the Carousel Child Development Center ("Carousel"), but the staff refused to release him to Ms. Zell. Mr. Lewis testified that it took "an hour of phone calls [and] emails" to convince Carousel to allow Ms. Zell to pick up P.J. Several dayslater, the parties received a letter from Carousel, stating that they had approximately two weeks to submit a written list of persons approved to pick up their son from daycare or he would be "disenrolled." Ms. Langford refused to allow Ms. Zell to be on the list, resulting in the parties being unable to agree on a list.

On February 3, 2016, Ms. Langford sent Mr. Lewis a lengthy email enumerating her reasons for refusing to permit Ms. Zell to pick up their children from daycare. She explained that it would be damaging to their children's "emotional health" because they were aware that Ms. Zell was his "mistress," and Ms. Langford could not condone "the perpetual reminder" that Mr. Lewis "chose to display in front of the children." Second, she noted "safety concerns" regarding Mr. Lewis and Ms. Zell leaving the children home alone. Finally, she alleged that Mr. Lewis and Ms. Zell exhibited a "[l]ack of expected parental judgment," citing an alleged incident where Ms. Zell "was seen in public extremely intoxicated barely able to walk and barefoot." Ms. Zell testified that, notwithstanding all of her concerns, Ms. Langford has never requested any information from her regarding criminal, drug, alcohol, or medical problems.

On February 4, 2016, Mr. Lewis provided Carousel a copy of the circuit court's judgment, which indicated that he and Ms. Langford had joint custody of their children. The following Monday, however, when Mr. Lewis went to drop off P.J., Carousel informed him that Ms. Langford had "disenrolled" P.J. from the daycare. On February 8, 2016, Ms. Langford sent Mr. Lewis an email regarding the daycare pickup issue. She stated that it was her understanding that the Judgment of Absolute Divorce had not yet been docketed,and therefore, Mr. Lewis had "either provided fraudulent legal documentation or unofficial paperwork posed as official, which is unethical at best." She stated that, on "numerous occasions," she had "attempted to come to a resolution by giving multiple options and solutions but unfortunately [she] was forced to discontinue [their son's] care at Carousel due to [Mr. Lewis'] lack of response." She stated that she had "stumble[d] upon a facility more aligned" with their son's needs and enrolled him there. She also...