Clarke v. Gibson

Summary

The Supreme Court of Maryland held that Philip Clarke did not preserve for appellate review his challenge to the scheduling of a final protective order hearing more than seven days after service of a temporary protective order. The Court further held that service of the temporary protective order generally satisfied procedural due process and rejected Clarke’s argument that he also had to be served with the petition. The Court vacated the Appellate Court’s judgment regarding the sufficiency of the evidence because the circuit court’s negative credibility determination, standing alone, did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that abuse occurred, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Clarke failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the scheduling of the final protective-order hearing more than seven days after service of the temporary protective order, and the Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary authority to reach the issue.
2. Where a temporary protective order identifies the reasonable grounds supporting the order and provides the required hearing and potential-relief information, service of the temporary protective order generally satisfies the respondent's procedural-due-process right to notice; due process does not additionally require service of the underlying petition.
3. The Appellate Court erred by affirming the final protective order solely on the basis that the circuit court did not find Clarke's testimony credible. A negative credibility determination alone is not affirmative evidence sufficient to satisfy the petitioner's burden to prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Clarke preserved for appellate review his challenge to the circuit court's scheduling of the final protective-order hearing more than seven days after service of the temporary protective order without expressly stating on the record that good cause existed.
2. Whether procedural due process required Clarke to be served with the underlying petition in addition to the temporary protective order when the temporary protective order identified the acts of abuse and the hearing information.
3. Whether the Appellate Court erred in affirming the final protective order solely because the circuit court did not find Clarke's testimony credible.

Disposition

other