HOME
 INJURY
DIVORCE
REFERRALS

 

 

Are You Confused Yet ?

 

Call My Office For  A Free Phone Consultation

1-888-760-7339

 

When Experience Counts ..

 

Venue of Divorce in Maryland

THE LAW OFFICES OF

KEITH BLAIR BARTNIK, P.A.

Venue for a Divorce Action

MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 6-201
 
6-201. In general
 
(a) Subject to the provisions of §§ 6-202 and 6-203 of this subtitle and unless otherwise provided by law, a civil action shall be brought in a county where the defendant resides, carries on a regular business, is employed, or habitually engages in a vocation. In addition, a corporation also may be sued where it maintains its principal offices in the State.


(b) If there is more than one defendant, and there is no single venue applicable to all defendants, under subsection (a), all may be sued in a county in which any one of them could be sued, or in the county where the cause of action arose.
§ 6-202. Additional actions
 

In addition to the venue provided in § 6-201 or § 6-203, the following actions may be brought in the indicated county:
 

(1) Divorce -- Where the plaintiff resides;
 
(2) Annulment -- Where the plaintiff resides or where the marriage ceremony was performed;
 
(5) Action relating to custody, guardianship, maintenance, or support of a child -- Where the father, alleged father, or mother of the child resides, or where the child resides;

(9) Attachment on original process -- Where the property is located or where the garnishee resides;
  
(13) In a local action in which the defendant cannot be found in the county where the subject matter of the action is located -- In any county in which the venue is proper under § 6-201.

See also:

Struzinski v. Butler
24 Md.App. 672, 332 A.2d 713
Md.App. 1975.
February 20, 1975

 
APPEAL NO. 493, FACTS

 
Appellants sought custody by petition filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on December 5, 1972. Although custody of the child had been awarded to the mother by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City at the time of her divorce, the appellants' petition noted that the child now resided with them in Baltimore County, and that both of the child's parents' whereabouts were unknown. Temporary custody was awarded appellants, while appellee and her estranged husband were ordered to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. On January 7, 1974 a similar order was issued. Three weeks later appellee filed a Motion Raising Preliminary Objection attacking venue in the Baltimore County Court. She recited that custody emanated from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City. Although the petition recited facts manifestly indicating a change in residential circumstances, the Baltimore County Court granted the motion and dismissed the appellants' petition for custody for reasons hereafter discussed. An appeal was entered.
 

Md.Code, Art. 16, Sec. 66(b) which section was in effect at the time the county opinion was rendered, read as follows:

 

‘(b) A bill or petition filed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section relating to the custody, guardianship, maintenance, and support of any child or children may be filed in the county or City of Baltimore wherein the father or the putative father or the mother or the child or children reside or are found.’
 

Following the Legislative enactment of the Code Revision Commission's recommendations, that section is now found under the ‘Subtitle 2-Venue’ of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Art., s 6-202:

‘In addition to the venue provided in ss 6-201 and 6-203, the following actions may be brought in the indicated county:
 
(5) Action relating to custody, guardianship, maintenance, or support of a child-Where the father, putative father, or mother of the child resides, or where the child resides;‘
 

The county chancellor noticed that the original divorce proceedings between the child's father and mother had taken place in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City and had resulted in the award of custody to the mother. He then dismissed the contention that the venue section quoted infra applied, saying:
 

‘This Court is of the opinion that said section establishes venue in an original action for custody, but not in a case where a court of competent jurisdiction has passed a decree with respect to custody subject to further Order of that Court. The language in the case of Berlin v. Berlin, 239 Md. 52, at Pages 56-57 (210 A.2d 380), is pertinent.

‘Although we recognized the domicile rule set forth in the Restatement, Conflict of Laws, s 117, in Naylor v. Naylor, 217 Md. 615, 143 A.2d 604 (1958) and in Zouck v. Zouck, 204 Md. 285, 104 A.2d 573 (1954), we were not concerned in either of those cases, as we are here, with the modification of an award of custody made by a court which by its decree (pursuant to statute) had reserved the right to make further orders. Where we have said that jurisdiction to determine custody depends on the domicile of the child we were concerned with the power of the court to award custody in the first place.
 
Keeping in mind that venue, and not jurisdiction, is here in question we have no difficulty in holding that the Circuit Court for Baltimore County was a proper custodial arbiter for two reasons, only one of which was made clear in the record.
 
‘A court of any state that has a substantial interest in the welfare of the child or in the preservation of the family unit of which he is a part, has jurisdiction to determine his custody, and this jurisdiction may exist in two or more states at the same time.“ (Emphasis added) Taylor v. Taylor, 246 Md. 616, 619-620, 229 A.2d 131-134.

The Motion should have been denied and the custody question decided in Baltimore County.

the record revealed that the child was residing in Baltimore County with the appellants.

 

MARYLAND UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 9.5-201 et. al.

 This is an interesting and slightly complicated statute. It involves those situations where one parent lives in one state and the other lives in another state. The issues arise when custody is at play and now the question is what state has jurisdiction. Maryland will exercise jurisdiction under the following circumstances:

 Grounds for jurisdiction

a court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if:

(1)   this State is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding,

(2)   or was the home state of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding

(3)   and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State;

(4)   a court of another state does not have jurisdiction,

(5)   or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum under § 9.5-207 or § 9.5-208 of this subtitle, and:

(6)   the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this State other than mere physical presence; and

(7)   substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships;

(8)  all courts having jurisdiction have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this State is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under § 9.5-207 or § 9.5-208 of this subtitle; or

(9)  no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in item (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection.

(10)  or §9.5-204 applies, a) A court of this State has temporary emergency jurisdiction if

a.      the child is present in this State and

b.      the child has been abandoned or

c.      it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, is subjected to or

d.      threatened with mistreatment or

e.      abuse.

 

 

"Home state" means:

(1) the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months, including any temporary absence, immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding; and

(2) in the case of a child less than 6 months of age, the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned, including any temporary absence.

 

A Word Of Caution 

 

 When court may decline jurisdiction

(a) Except as otherwise provided in § 9.5-204 of this subtitle or by other law of this State, if a court of this State has jurisdiction under this title because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless:

(1) the parents and all persons acting as parents have acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction;

(2) a court of the state otherwise having jurisdiction under §§ 9.5-201 through 9.5-203 of this subtitle determines that this State is a more appropriate forum under § 9.5-207 of this subtitle; or

(3) no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in §§ 9.5-201 through 9.5-203 of this subtitle.

 

Remedy to ensure safety of child



(b) If a court of this State declines to exercise its jurisdiction under subsection (a) of this section, it may fashion an appropriate remedy to ensure the safety of the child and prevent a repetition of the unjustifiable conduct, including staying the proceeding until a child custody proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction under §§ 9.5-201 through 9.5-203 of this subtitle.

Assessments of expenses and fees


(c)(1) If a court dismisses a petition or stays a proceeding because it declines to exercise its jurisdiction under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall assess against the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction necessary and reasonable expenses, including costs, communication expenses, attorney's fees, investigative fees, expenses for witnesses, travel expenses, and child care during the course of the proceedings, unless the party from whom fees are sought establishes that the assessment would be clearly inappropriate.

(2) The court may not assess fees, costs, or expenses against this State unless authorized by law other than this title.

 

 
Offices Conveniently Located Throughout Maryland

toll free 1-888-760-7339 
 

 

Count on an Attorney With Experience

  

Search for Mr. Bartnik on Yahoo, Google and MSN under the following search terms: Maryland Lawyer, Car Accident, Traffic Accident, divorce, divorce in Maryland, divorce lawyers in Maryland, Maryland Divorce, child custody in Maryland, child support, alimony, MD attorney, Maryland divorce lawyer, attorney, Maryland attorney, marital property, parents visitation rights, Maryland law, child support attorney, military divorce lawyer, Prince George County lawyer, Baltimore City Lawyer, good lawyer in Maryland, Howard County Lawyer, trial attorney, Maryland trial lawyer. Maryland Personal Injury, auto accident, motorcycle accident, wrongful death, medical malpractice, legal malpractice, personal injury statute of limitations, serious personal injury, Prince George County lawyer.

Visit our Other Sites at: yourMarylandDivorceLawyer.com
A Maryland Lawyer practicing personal injury, divorce, criminal defense and workers compensation law for over 20 years.  MarylandInjuryAttorney.net A Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer. Bartnik-Law.com A Maryland Lawyer practicing personal injury, divorce, criminal defense and workers compensation law for over 20 years.  http://www.yourmarylandlawyer.com/  A Maryland Lawyer practicing personal injury, divorce, criminal defense and workers compensation law for over 20 years.

 
 
DISCLAIMER: Keith Blair Bartnik, P.A.. has created this website to be informative, but you should remember the contents are general in nature and not meant to substitute the specific legal advice given by an attorney based on your individual questions and needs. We have made every effort to provide up to date information and links, however we make no guarantees. Viewing this website and communicating with us by electronic mail or making a general inquiry does not create an attorney client relationship. You should be aware that contacting our law firm through the internet is not considered secure and therefore you should not send confidential or sensitive information that may be illegally intercepted by others.

Copy Right 2007 Your Maryland Lawyer Maryland Injury Attorney  Maryland Divorce Lawyer Maryland Injury Divorce Blog Injury Blog

Hit Counter

 

Home | Up | Contact | Personal Injury | Criminal | Link Exchange | Site Map

This site was last updated 01/31/08