M.Y. v. L.G.

M.Y. v. L.G.

No. 1201-2020

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

October 7, 2021

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No CAD13-12909

Berger, Wells, Ripken, JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Berger, J.

This case involves a custody dispute originating in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. M.Y. ("Mother") filed a complaint for limited divorce against L.G. ("Father") on April 30, 2013.^[1] On October 15, 2013, the trial court entered a judgment of limited divorce. The trial court awarded Mother and Father joint legal custody and shared physical custody of the parties' minor children, L. and S.^[2] In May of 2019, Mother filed a motion for modification of the custody schedule. Father also filed a motion for modification in July of 2019. On December 2, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the competing motions. That same day, the trial court issued an Order denying Mother's motion and granting Father's motion. The trial court ordered that the parties would continue sharing legal custody, but that Father would have sole physical custody of S., with Mother having one-hour supervised visitation every other Monday.^[3] Mother filed a notice of appeal on December 23, 2019.

On June 25, 2020, Mother filed a motion for modification of the December 2, 2019 Order and a motion for contempt. Father filed a motion for modification and a motion to obtain S.'s passport from Mother on September 30, 2020. On October 23, 2020, Mother filed a motion to recuse Judge Robin Gill Bright. Judge Bright denied Mother's motion for recusal on November 6, 2020. The trial court held a hearing on January 7, 2021 regarding both parties' motions. On January 20, 2021, the trial court issued an Order denying Mother's motion for contempt, Mother's motion for modification, and Father's motion for modification. The trial court also ordered that Father's motion to obtain S.'s passport would be held in abeyance. Mother filed a notice of appeal on February 17, 2021. The original notice of appeal, filed after the December 2, 2019 hearing, was not received by the Court of Special Appeals until December 16, 2020. Mother's two appeals were consolidated.

Mother presents four questions for our review, ^[4] which we have rephrased for clarity as follows:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its analysis of the best interests of the minor child and ultimately deciding to restrict Mother's visitation rights.

II. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it conducted an in camera interview of the minor child and did not record the interview or disclose its contents to the parties.

III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to recuse the trial judge from further proceedings.

IV. Whether Mother had a right to appointed counsel in a civil case due to her indigent status.

For the reasons explained herein, we shall affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEEEDINGS

Mother and Father married on October 21, 1999 in a civil ceremony in Arlington, Virginia and also on March 11, 2000 in a religious ceremony in Venezuela. The parties lived together as husband and wife following the marriage. The parties had two children as a result of the marriage: L. and S, who were ages 18 and 11 respectively, at the time of the original modification hearing on December 2, 2019. On October 13, 2013, the trial court issued a judgment of limited divorce. In the judgment the trial court incorporated a Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agreement ("Separation Agreement") signed by both parties, dated March 26, 2013. The trial court awarded Mother and Father joint legal custody and shared physical custody of both minor children. The shared physical custody access schedule was outlined in the Separation Agreement. The trial court also ordered that Father pay to Mother monthly child support in the amount of $768.00. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement, the minor children were to spend each Wednesday overnight with Father from 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Thursday. Further, the minor children would spend alternate weekends with Father from 6:00 p.m. on Friday until Monday morning at 10:00 a.m. The minor children were to spend the remaining time with Mother.^[5]

A judgment of absolute divorce was entered on April 12, 2015. In July of 2015, Father filed a motion to incorporate an Addendum to the Separation Agreement ("Addendum Agreement"). After a hearing, the trial court granted Father's motion and incorporated the Addendum Agreement into the judgment of limited divorce, therefore modifying the custody access schedule accordingly. Pursuant to the Addendum Agreement, the parties retained shared physical custody of the minor children. The Addendum Agreement provided that Father would have physical custody every Tuesday after school overnight through Thursday morning drop-off to school and every other weekend from Friday after school through Monday morning drop-off to school. Further, the Addendum Agreement stipulated that the non-custodial party may contact the minor children when they are with the other parent no more than one time per day for an uninterrupted period of thirty minutes. The Addendum Agreement also outlined that any travel with the minor children must be accompanied by written permission from the other parent. As to the children's passports, the Addendum Agreement specified that Mother shall retain the United States passport for S. and Father shall retain the United States passport for L.

On May 31, 2019, Mother filed a motion for modification of the custody Order. In her motion, Mother requested that the trial court grant her "primary physical custody and sole legal custody" of the parties' minor daughter, S.^[6] Father filed an opposition to Mother's motion on July 19, 2019. That same day, Father also filed a motion for modification.^[7] In his motion, Father argued that Mother had reported concerns regarding Father's care of S. to the Maryland Department of Social Services ("DSS") and had violated the Addendum Agreement multiple times.

Throughout the summer of 2019, Mother made several allegations against Father. As a result, DSS and a social worker conducted investigations to assess any relevant safety concerns related to S. The social worker conducted a home study and a meeting with Mother. The social worker also visited Father's residence, however, Father received advice from his counsel and elected not to speak with the social worker.^[8] Notwithstanding his decision, Father allowed the social worker to speak with S. When observing Father's residence during her home visit, the social worker found that the home was clean and tidy. The social worker also found that the minor child was well kept and neat. After concluding her conversation with the minor child, the social worker determined that S. was well taken care of and that there were no safety concerns at issue in Father's home. At the conclusion of the home study, DSS found that all of Mother's allegations were unsubstantiated.

On September 5, 2019, the parties appeared before a Family Magistrate. Mother filed a response to Father's motion for modification on September 13, 2019. On September 19, 2019, the Family Magistrate proposed that a custody and mental health evaluation be completed for all parties and that the case be continued to December 2, 2019.

On October 18, 2019, S. attended school and told the school counselor that she was suicidal. DSS was contacted again. Tamira Robinson ("Robinson"), a social worker, met with S. on that day. During the meeting, Robinson gained information from S. which provided that S. had panic attacks and thoughts of killing herself when spending time with Mother. Robinson also found that S. had reported to the school guidance counselor that she wanted to harm herself. Further, Robinson reported that S. did not feel safe with Mother and did not want to return home with her. Finally, Robinson found that S. would try to harm or kill herself if forced to return to Mother.

Based on this information, a DSS Safety Plan ("Safety Plan") was put into effect on October 18, 2019. The Safety Plan outlined a custody and visitation schedule for S., wherein she would be placed with Father full-time, "temporarily until Mother . . . has demonstrated that she is allowed to be left alone with her daughter." Further, the Safety Plan required Mother to undergo a mental health assessment and, if the assessment indicated that treatment is required, Mother must complete all treatment prior to S. being left alone with Mother. The Safety Plan allowed for Mother to have two hours of supervised visits two days a week. Accordingly, Mother was granted supervised access to S. every Monday and Tuesday for one hour each day.

The parties appeared before the trial court on December 2, 2019. Both parties appeared pro se. During the hearing, the trial court heard testimony from Lois Smith ("Smith"), a family casework specialist with the Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services; Mother; and Father.^[9] Smith testified as to the process of how the case was assigned to her and the steps she took to investigate. Smith testified that Mother's concerns regarding S. being exposed to pornography were solely based on prior interactions between Mother and Father during their marriage. To be sure, Mother was concerned that S. would be inadvertently exposed to pornography by Father.

Following Smith's testimony, the trial court conducted an in camera interview with S. The trial judge conducted this interview in her chambers and off the record. Upon her return to the courtroom, the trial judge explained that she had an opportunity to speak with S. Further, the trial judge explained that "[t]his is standard in family cases" and that "[t]here are ways in...