case with the proper authorization given by parties. There may be circumstances
involving severe time constraints and possible emergencies; therefore, decisions may be initially com- municated orally to both parties. However, agreements of the parties and decisions of the Parenting Co- ordinator, including those initially announced orally, shall be reduced to writing and issued to each par- ent. If all parties and the Parenting
Coordinator agree, the duration of the consent may be extended. Any consent order specifying the exten- sion shall be filed with the Court. Fees are determined by the Par-
enting Coordinator and will be detailed in the Parenting Coordi- nator’s Agreement. Any grievances regarding the
performance or actions of the Parenting Coordinator should first be brought to the Parenting Coordinator’s attention and efforts should be made to resolve the griev- ance. If, before the Court ordered time expires, both parents agree to stop work with the selected Parent- ing Coordinator or the Parenting Coordinator resigns, the parents should select another mutually agreed upon Parenting Coordina- tor within seven days and file with the Court an amended Consent Order.
Concluding Thoughts I have asked many judges over many
years what is their most challenging area of work. Often, they comment that the high conflict custody cases are the ones that clog their dockets the most, as well as leave them feeling that regardless of their rulings, these parties will be back. To date, very few ADR models have
been effective in reducing the number of these high conflict cases. The advantages of using a parent coordinator are clear. The dockets unclog, and parents can learn to communicate with each other,
Winter 2008
with a little help at first and perhaps on their own later. Are there any disadvantages to parent
coordination? Obviously, not all cases need parent coordination. They should be screened carefully. The goal of parent coordination is
to assist parents in learning the process of making shared decisions for their children. Remember, that is not the function or goal of the court system, which only looks to the present best interests of the parties’ children. Hope- fully, more judges will see the incredible opportunity presented by using par- ent coordinators to advance the best interests of children prospectively. If successful, the Maryland courts will have provided the best remedy of all to the parents and their children: giving peace a chance. n
About the Author
Harry B. Siegel (The Law Office of Harry B. Siegel, LLC) practices all aspects of divorce and family law, including custody litigation. He was a judicial clerk in both the Circuit Court for Bal- timore City and interned for a judge at the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Mr. Siegel has been a litigator in the state and federal courts at both the trial and appellate levels for more than a decade. He has been a frequent lecturer on issues relating to family law across Maryland. Mr. Siegel is a member of the Maryland State Bar, the Maryland Federal Bar, the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Bar and the United States Supreme Court Bar. Mr. Siegel founded MTLA’s Family Law Section and chaired it for five years.
“who has the better lawyer.” —Robert Frost
The best lawyer has the best preparation. Let Esquire Trial Presentation Services help you prove your case.
Trial Preparation • Use of Litigation and Multimedia Trial Presentation Software Trial Presentation Strategy • Electronic Exhibit Preparation • Video Services Technical Support at Trial • Full Litigation Support Services
Advanced Technologies. Expert Staff. Proven Experience. Call us today at 800.539.6398.
® E SQ UIR E
LITIGA TION SOLUTIONS A HOBART WEST COMPANY
LINKING DOCUMENTS, DATA AND DISCOVERY toll-free 800.539.6398 •
www.esquirelitigationsolutions.com
The World Trade Center • 401 East Pratt St., #425 • Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: 1410.539.6398 • Fax: 410.576.7207
Esquire Litigation Solutions, LLC is a subsidiary of The Hobart West Group, Inc. The
© Esquire Litigation Solutions 2004. All rights reserved. Printed in the USA. 0404111DH ®
logo is a registered trademark of The Hobart West Group, Inc.
“Ajury consists of twelve” persons chosen to decide
Trial Reporter
41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64