Preview:

REPORTED
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 608 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1995 ___________________________________

ROBIN L. WAGNER (SCHWARTZ)

v. RICHARD B. WAGNER

___________________________________

Bloom, Fischer, Cathell, JJ. ___________________________________ Opinion by Cathell, J. ___________________________________

Filed: February 6, 1996

In an Order dated November 17, 1994, the Circuit Court for Carroll County (Beck, J., presiding) awarded permanent custody of the parties' two minor children to appellee, Richard Wagner (Mr. Wagner). The court further found appellant, Robin Wagner (Ms. have voluntarily impoverished herself. She now

Wagner),1 to

appeals to this Court, charging, inter alia, that the circumstances leading to the trial court's Order deprived her of due process of law. Namely, she contends that she was not given notice of, and an

opportunity to prepare for, various hearings that took place in the years following her divorce from Mr. Wagner. aggrieved by other of the court's rulings She is further and presents the

following questions for our consideration, which we renumber as follows: 1. Did the court violate appellant's constitutional due process rights to notice, opportunity to be heard, opportunity to prepare for the hearing and opportunity to defend claims, during the proceedings below? Did appellee satisfy his burden of proving a change of circumstances to justify

2.

Since the cause of action was begun, Ms. Wagner has legally changed her name to reflect her maiden name, Schwartz. For purposes of this opinion, however, we shall continue to refer to her by her married name.

1

-2a change in Erika's custody, either in 1992 or 1994? 3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when on April 2, 1992 it granted appellee "immediate custody" of Erika without making any provisions to protect Erika from the risk of continued sexual abuse and without an evidentiary hearing? Did the court err in failing to acknowledge that appellant was justified in declining to send eight-year-old Erika for grandparent visitation where appellant had reason to believe that Erika would be exposed to the danger of continuing sexual abuse by appellee and such action was against Colorado DSS recommendations and court motion? Did the trial court err when it ruled that appellant had voluntarily impoverished herself? Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it relied on the statements made by the children at the in camera interviews, absent questions establishing their competency? Did the trial court abuse its discretion in assessing counsel fees against appellant where the court failed to make the findings mandated by statute, Md. Code, Family Law Art.

Download Wagner v. Wagner.pdf

Maryland Law