In re Deontay J., 408 Md. 152

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that a father's filing labeled a notice of exceptions functioned as a motion to vacate, making his appeal timely. The court further held that custody proceedings involving prior neglect required specific findings under Maryland Family Law § 9-101 and remanded for those findings. It also held that the pendency of an appeal did not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction to modify custody based on a subsequent material change in circumstances.

Holdings

1. The father's September 20, 2007 notice of appeal was timely because his filing captioned as a notice of exceptions functioned as a motion to vacate the April 21, 2007 order, and substance rather than form controls.
2. When the father had neglected Deontay's siblings, the circuit court could not award him custody of Deontay without specifically finding that there was no likelihood of further abuse or neglect by him, as required by Family Law § 9-101(b).
3. An appeal from a custody order does not divest the circuit court of jurisdiction to decide a motion seeking a change in custody based on a material change in circumstances occurring after the appealed order, when modification is in the child's best interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Special Appeals had appellate jurisdiction when the father filed exceptions to the master's recommendation after the circuit court had entered an order adopting that recommendation, but did not file a separate motion to vacate.
2. Whether Family Law § 9-101 required the circuit court to make a specific finding concerning the likelihood of further neglect before awarding custody to the father, where the father had neglected Deontay's siblings.
3. Whether the pendency of an appeal from a custody order divested the circuit court of jurisdiction to modify custody based on a material change in circumstances occurring after entry of that order.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded