Thompson v. Robinson

SEMONE THOMPSON v. HAROLD ROBINSON, JR.

No. 282-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

December 7, 2022

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No. CAD 14-06930.

Nazarian, Friedman, Wright, Jr., Alexander, (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Nazarian, J. Semone Thompson ("Mother") challenges the Circuit Court for Prince George's County's order denying her petition for contempt and her motion for modification in her custody case against Harold Robinson, Jr. ("Father"). Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to find Father in contempt for failing to pay child support and by denying her request for visitation scheduled at the child's discretion. Mother argues that the court was biased against her and failed to consider the best interests of the child. We find no error and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The parties divorced in 2014 and are the parents of one child, who was born in December 2011. In October 2014, Mother had sole physical and legal custody over the child and Father paid child support. Since then, though, there has been a great deal of conflict, and both parties have filed various motions to modify and petitions for contempt against each another. Mother has obtained multiple protective orders against Father, but also has been found in contempt of the custody order for denying Father visitation.

On June 17, 2021, Mother obtained a final protective order against Father which stated that "[t]here is a preponderance of the evidence to believe that [Father] committed the following act(s) of abuse(s): Placed [Mother] in fear of imminent serious bodily harm." The order referenced Father's statement on April 24, 2021 that "I'm going to kill her[.]" The court ordered Father not to "abuse or threaten to abuse [Mother] or minor child" and prohibited Father from contacting Mother "except to facilitate any child visitation" through OurFamilyWizard.

A. Mother's Petition For Contempt And Motion For Modification

At issue in this appeal is Mother's April 12, 2021 petition for contempt for failure to pay child support owed and request for a modification of visitation. The alleged change in circumstances was that Father "has been convicted of child abuse. He is not an active parent in child's life and when he had visitation was negligent and emotionally and verbally abusive. Child now has been diagnosed w/ PTSD." She requested supervised visitation, for the cell phone the child used to communicate with Father to be returned, and for the child to "only be made to speak with [Father] if the calls are cordial and only if the child wants to." Mother later sought to have visits occur only at the child's discretion.

B. The Hearing

On February 22, 2022, the court held what can only be described as a chaotic Zoom hearing that featured numerous interruptions and connection issues. Mother, who was represented by counsel, testified first. She told the court that she hadn't received child support since 2020, and that because the parties have a protective order in place where they don't communicate "unless it has to do with visitation," she has never discussed child support with Father or the reasons he hasn't paid.

As for visitation, Mother testified that the child has suffered harm as a result of his visits with Father:

The reason why I'd like the visitation arrangement to be modified is because my son has experienced physical and emotional harm. I put my son in therapy . . . and since then, my son has been able to communicate with me and with his therapist some of the issues that he was experiencing at [Father's] home. . . . I don't want him being put in a dangerous situation.

She also referred to the existing "protective order that was recently granted because [Father] made the actual threat to my son of what he was going to do to me, which my son had to testify in a court. And so the threats haven't stopped." When Mother tried to describe the threats that her son told her Father had made ("he was told he was going to have his liver cut out with a knife"), the court interrupted her, and instructed, "you can't testify to what your son has told you."

Mother asked the court to allow the child to decide "whether he wants to go over there for a weekend," and to allow him to return to Mother on Sundays instead of Mondays. Mother admitted that visitation with Father has been ongoing and was admonished by the trial court for trying to review documents while testifying.

The child also testified at the hearing. At first, the court asked the child questions and kept the discussion light, discussing video games, school, and activities. When asked about his mental health, the child stated, "Sometimes in class I'll miss my siblings or just think about things that happened-that are bad and stuff." He stated that he visited Father two weekends ago and "[i]t was okay." When pressed for whether he was ever in danger with Father, he described a time when Father reached for pizza while driving, "smoking," and "driv[ing] a bit fast." The child had difficulty thinking of "anything dangerous" that concerned him with Father; he thought sometimes Father drank alcohol when driving, and that perhaps he'd been injured by Father while playing too rough. He described an incident where Father grabbed a knife in the kitchen and "he said he was going to cut out my liver," but couldn't remember when it happened or what happened leading up to the event. He also described one time when Father was angry and called him names after testifying in the protective order case: "He has called me a snake before, he has called me the B word, and the N word . . . . [H]e was mad because of that one time when I testified in court." When asked about his relationship with Mother, the child said, "She gives me clothes, she feeds me, she lets me go outside, she gives me games and stuff. She's-I mean, I can't ask for anything else to be honest."

The court then asked the child about visitation, and the child asked if he could decide when to stay or leave from Father's house:

[THE COURT:] Okay. How are you with your visit schedule as it goes now, is it working for you?

[THE CHILD:] Yes, it's working for me but I do have one question.

[THE COURT:] Oh, absolutely, what's your question?

[THE CHILD:] I wanted to, you know, kind of like make it so that I can go and leave when I want to. Like if I don't want to go, I don't have to go. I mean, we've done that before and dad was okay with that, but like . . . when there's a birthday party or something, but like I want to go when I want to go and stuff like that, and I was just wondering we can make it like that.

[THE COURT:] And why is that you would want to leave sometimes?

* * *

[THE CHILD:] . . . [I]f he has like work or I just want to go back home or something. And, yeah.

[THE COURT:] Okay. So not because he's done anything, just because you want to end the visit?

[THE CHILD:] Sometimes can be because he done-he did something, but most of the times it's going to be I just want to end the visit or like my friends are going to . . . do something that day and that's really it.

[THE COURT:] Okay. And right now, you see him every other weekend?

[THE CHILD:] Yeah.

[THE COURT:] Okay. Anything else you want to tell me?

[THE CHILD:] No, not really.

The court also asked about, and the child discussed, his therapist, to whom he talks about "getting bullied or I mean like my dad and siblings and stuff . . . ."

Father, who was pro se, gave brief narrative testimony. He stated that he didn't agree to Mother's request for his visitation to end on Sundays because she would take advantage of the situation and keep the child from him as she had done in the past. He too was interrupted by the court and directed to refrain from giving hearsay testimony and discussing irrelevant events.

At the close of all of the testimony, and despite having no witness to move documents into evidence, Mother's counsel sought to admit documents that hadn't been shared with Father before the hearing. Instead of denying admission, though, the court continued the hearing to March 15, 2022. When they reconvened, the court admitted two documents, both court orders in effect at the time of the hearing: (1) a copy of the June 17, 2021 final protective order, and (2) a April 23, 2021 order regarding visitation and access between the parties.

The court denied admission of a "Charles County docket entry" that the court already had "considered in the past with another hearing" and that was "not related to this child," and therefore irrelevant. In addition, the court declined to admit the child's therapy records because there was no custodian and no witness to authenticate them. The court reviewed the records and stated that, in addition to general references to trauma, they revealed a PTSD diagnosis but "no specific identification of what caused the PTSD at all. So I can't find that this is specifically related to the father."

Mother's counsel gave a closing argument highlighting the child's testimony that Mother "does everything for him." Counsel also argued that "I think we've been able to show that [Father] remains not what I'll consider a fit parent. I think we've been able to show that there is an element of negligence and abuse." He referenced the incident where Father took out a knife, which he called "outrightly dangerous" and "very abusive." Father offered in closing that "[Mother's] weaponized the court system and I'm tired of it. Like I'm fighting to see my son every weekend. I love my son. He knows I would never do anything to hurt him. They keep saying something about a knife. Never pulled a knife on my son."

C. The Court's Ruling

The court ruled from the bench and began by detailing...