How Does “Tie-Breaking Authority” Work in Maryland Child Custody Cases?

Maryland child custody law makes a distinction between physical and legal custody. Physical custody determines who the child lives with and how much time they spend with each parent. Legal custody, in contrast, deals with the division of decision-making authority. For example, if parents have shared legal custody they must agree on certain major decisions affecting the child’s life, such as where they go to school or what religious services they will attend.

Dealing with a Breakdown of Communication Between Parents

So what happens when parents have shared legal custody but reach an impasse when it comes to one or more critical decisions about their child? In that scenario, a Maryland judge can give one parent “tie-breaking” authority to break the deadlock in favor of their position. Now, this does not mean that the parent with tie-breaking authority can simply ignore the other parent’s wishes. As the Maryland Court of Appeals–now the Supreme Court of Maryland–explained in a 2016 decision, “When, and only when the parties are at an impasse after deliberating in good faith does the tie-breaking provision permit one parent to make the final call.”

While tie-breaking authority is often granted as a way to preempt future litigation, a judge can also award the power to one parent after a dispute has already arisen. The Appellate Court of Maryland recently addressed such a scenario. In Plate v. Gallagher, a mother and father of a minor child divorced in 2023. As part of the divorce, the parents signed a marital settlement agreement (MSA), in which they agreed to shared legal custody.

Both parents initially lived in Howard County, Maryland. Shortly after signing the MSA, but before the court approved a final divorce decree, the mother informed the father she planned to move to Arlington County, Virginia, for work. This prompted the father to go back to the judge and request primary physical custody of the child, citing the change in circumstances. The mother then filed a counter-claim, alleging the father “had become increasingly hostile and can no longer co-parent on important issues.” She therefore requested tie-breaking authority with respect to future decisions.

The judge did grant tie-breaking authority–but to the father. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial judge’s decision, noting that the evidence presented detailed “numerous examples of issues over which the parties cannot reach a shared decision.” For example, there were “detailed conflicts over where the parties’ child would attend school in the fall of 2025,” whether the child should receive a flu shot, and what church the child should attend. In short, the parents “could no longer communicate effectively with each other,” thus it was necessary to grant one parent tie-breaking authority.

As for why the judge chose the father over the mother to exercise such authority, the Appellate Court indicated it was the fact that the mother started planning her move from Maryland to Virginia while simultaneously negotiating the MSA without informing the father of her intentions.

Contact a La Plata Child Custody Lawyer Today

Even when parents fight in court, they are both looking out for what they consider the best interests of their child. Our La Plata child custody lawyer can help you in presenting your case in a professional manner. Contact Fanning Law, LLC today to schedule a consultation. We serve clients in LaPlata, Waldorf, and Lexington Park.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9669522184811232650