Preview:

Arrington v. Dept. of H uman R es., et al. , No. 10, September Term, 2007. McLong v. Oliver, No. 26 , Septem ber Te rm, 200 7. Opinion by Wilner, J. CON STRU CTIV E CIV IL CO NTEM PT FO R VIO LATIO N OF CHIL D SU PPOR T OR DER ; COURT MAY NOT INCARCERATE DEFENDANT FOR FAILURE TO MEET A PURGE THAT DEFENDANT IS NOT ABLE TO MEET IN TIME TO AVOID THE INCARCERATION.

IN THE COURT OF A PPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 10 September Term, 2007 ___________________________________________ BRIAN ARRINGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMA N RESOURCES, ET AL. ___________________________________________ No. 26 September Term, 2007 ___________________________________________ MARCELLAS McLONG v. SHARON OLIVER ___________________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Wiln er, A lan M . (Re tired , Spe cially Assigned), Cath ell, D ale R . (Re tired , Spe cially Assigned), JJ. ___________________________________________ Opinion by Wilner, J. Bell , C.J., join s jud gme nt on ly. ___________________________________________ Filed: November 8, 2007

We have before us two more cases in which a trial court has searched for some effective way to enforce the legal obligation that parents have to support the children they bring into the world.1 In Bryant v. Social Services, 387 Md. 30, 33, 874 A.2d 457, 458 (2005), we acknow ledged the difficulties an d the frustratio n faced b y the courts w hen dealin g with par ents who wilfully and def iantly refuse to comply with lawfu l, and often consensu al, child support orders. We recognized in Bryant, as we had in earlier cases, that, when all other efforts fail, the last coercive arrow in the court's quiver is to hold the parent in contempt of court for wilful disobedience of the support order, but we again cautioned that, when exercise of the contempt power leads to the p rospect of incarcerating the p arent, the court's authority and discretion are subject to certain overarching limitations. We observed that, in an attempt to navigate through those limitations and provide a mechanism to achieve the desired result, the Court, in 1997, made certain revisions to its newly adopted Maryland Rule 15-207. The mechanism created by those revisions may not be perfect, and in some cases may not be effective, but, when employed correctly, it is at least permissible and has a reasonable chance of success. The problem in Bryant, as well as in Rawlings v. Rawlings, 362 Md. 535, 766 A.2d 98 (2001), and Wilson v. Holliday , 364 Md. 589, 774 A.2d 1123 (2001), and Dorsey a nd Craft v . State , 356 Md. 32 4, 739 A .2d 41 (19 99) was th at the Circu it Court did n ot follow th e path laid o ut by the Rule. That is also the problem here. It is, as the great philosopher, Lawrence Peter

The cases were not consolidated, but they were argued the same day and present the same legal issue, so we have chosen to deal with them both in this one Opinion.

1

Berra, is reputed to have said, deja vu all over again.

BACKGROUND Brian Arrington Brian A rrington sired three childre n within an eighteen m onth period but has stea dfastly refused to support any of them. In February, 1992, through a consent paternity judgment entered by the Circuit Court fo r Baltimore City, he was orde red to pay $25 per we ek to Audra Hardy for the support of their minor child, Sonata, born in October, 1991. In August, 1992, through a second consent paternity order entered by the Circuit Court, he was ordered to pay Kim berly Valentin e $45 per we ek fo r the supp ort of the ir min or ch ild, M artia , born in J anuary, 1992. Fin ally in Octobe r, 1993, throu gh a third co nsent patern ity order entered by the Circuit Court, he was ordered to pay Ms. Hardy $28 per week for the support of their minor child, Rian, b orn in M arch, 19 93. By late 1998 , Arrington had accu mulated a n arrearage of nearly $14 ,800 with r espect to Sonata and R ian and over $14 ,000 with respect to M artia, and contempt charg es were filed. It appea rs that he was in carcera ted, at lea st for a tim e, whe n he fa iled to ap pear as directed . There is some indication that in September, 1999, he was found in contempt in all three cases but was released from confinement upon his agreement to pay certain lump sums by January 3, 2000. W hether thos e sums w ere paid is no t clear. In Oc tober, 2001 , the three sup port

-2-

orders were modified with respect to amounts and payments on the arrearages.2 The cases now before us commenced in January, 2004, apparently upon the issuance of two Paternity Contempt Warrants, one with respect to Sonata and Rian (the Hardy case) and the other with respect to Martia (the Valentine case). Both warrants state that they were based on verified petitions, but th e only petitions th at we can locate in the re cord we re those filed in December, 1998, which, of course, were five years old at the time and appear to have been adjudicated in September, 1999. The warrants directed that Arrington be apprehended and committed to the Baltimore City Jail pending a hearing but authorized bail of $5,000. For whatever reason, it took eighteen months

Download Arrington v. Human Resources.pdf

Maryland Law