Case Notes: Khalifa, et al. v. Shannon
Damages for the Tort of Interference With Custodial and Visitation Rights by Stephen J. Cullen
In 2008 the Court of Appeals rec-
ognized two new torts for custodial interference and visitation interference in Khalifa v. Shannon, 404 Md. 107 (2008). Just as important, the Court of Appeals opined in its decision on the appropriateness of the award of compensatory and punitive damages in these new torts and in doing so clarified exactly what has to be established by the plaintiff to attain punitive damages. Id. at 142-149.
Background to Damages Award
The facts of this case, needless to
say, are terrible. Michael Shannon and Nermeen Khalifa were married in 1996. They had two children, Adam and Jason, both American citizens and residents of Anne Arundel County. Until the day they were removed from the United States, they had spent their whole lives in Maryland. Mr. Shannon and Ms. Khalifa sepa-
rated in January 2000. Then in February 2001 the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County entered a Consent Order award- ing Mr. Shannon custody of Adam and Ms. Khalifa custody of Jason. The parties were also granted regular visitation with the other non-custodial child. This arrangement continued until
August 2001. At the end of the summer Ms. Khalifa’s mother, Afaf Khalifa, flew from Egypt to the United States alleg- edly to visit the children. The mother and grandmother then convinced Mr. Shannon that he should allow the women to take both children to New York for a weekend to see family rela- tives. Tragically, on August 26, 2001 the Khalifas spirited the two boys onto a plane bound for Egypt and Mr. Shan- non has never seen his children again.
Winter 2009
He has never spoken to Jason since that weekend. Mr. Shannon had been able to speak very briefly to Adam on a very few occasions shortly after the child was kidnapped. Adam initially was begging to be rescued by his father. As time went on Adam began to tell his father that he wanted bulldozers to destroy the homes of Americans. Mr. Shannon then lost all contact with Adam. Shortly after the kidnappings, Mr. Shannon was also awarded custody of
Custody and Visitation Rights of Chil- dren” and civil conspiracy. On December 14, 2006, following a
jury trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Mr. Shannon was awarded one million dollars in com- pensatory damages and two million dollars in punitive damages as well as damages for attorneys’ fees and transla- tion costs. The Khalifas appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Ap-
On March 25, 2004 Mr. Shannon filed a Complaint seek- ing compensatory and punitive damages for “Interference with Custody and Visitation Rights of Children” and civil conspiracy.
his son Jason. Incredibly, after the abduc- tions, Afaf Khalifa attempted to re-enter the United States through California (where the Khalifas own property) for her annual vacation in the United States. She was apprehended there (to her as- tonishment), extradited to Maryland, convicted and sentenced to a ten-year prison term, which was later reduced on appeal to three years. Finally, Afaf Khalifa was deported to Egypt after only 17 months in prison.
The Lawsuit and the Verdict After years of failed efforts to get his
children home to the United States and with the knowledge of his wife avoiding all culpability and his mother-in-law get- ting an early release and a ticket home, Mr. Shannon decided to try to sue for money damages from the Khalifas. On March 25, 2004 Mr. Shannon filed a Complaint seeking compensatory and punitive damages for “Interference with
Trial Reporter
peals then granted certiorari on its own motion prior to any proceedings in the Court of Special Appeals to address the question of whether Maryland recog- nizes the torts of custodial and visitation interference. On April 9, 2008, the Court of Appeals
held that such torts were indeed recog- nized; that loss of a child’s service is not a necessary element of the torts; and that a parent only with visitation could bring an action as long as the interference with visitation was “major and substantial.” Importantly, the Court then went on to consider the issue of compensatory and punitive damages in such cases.
The Court’s Damages Analysis
The Khalifas made no real challenge
to the compensatory damages award in the appellate court. Rather, having moved for remittur in the circuit court and lost, arguing grossly excessive dam-
55
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 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76