Posted on May 13, 2011 in Family Law

As a family law practitioner I have represented a number of petitioners and respondents in protective order hearings throughout the state of Maryland. Unfortunately, the purpose and intent of a protective order is often misinterpreted and misused by the litigants. The purpose of the domestic violence statute as defined by Maryland case law is to protect and aid victims of domestic violence by providing a quick and effective remedy and to prevent further harm to the victim. It is not intended to produce pendente lite orders relating to custody, support, and marital property that are effective for the duration of the Protective Order. Oftentimes, Petitioners attempt to use this necessary and important statute to do just what it was not meant to do – obtain custody of a child in common with the respondent.

I recently represented a respondent in a Final Protective Order hearing , in which the petitioner used the staute to attept to gain custody of their chid. In that case the petitioner alleged an assault upon him by the respondent that resulted in their infant child being bounced off the bed, where she was laying at the time, and landing on the floor. The police were called to the residence three times over the course of less than 24 hours and no one was arrested or left the residence. Ironically, the respondent fled the state the next day with the assistance of a domestic violence program due to continuing abuse by the petitioner upon her. Nevertheless, the petitioner filed a Temporary Protective Order, which was granted and awarded him custody of the parties infant child. My client was already out of the state (with the child) and once she was served with the Order did appear for the Final Protective Order Hearing. Once the Petitioner put on his case, the evidence in my opinion, was abundantly clear that even in the light most favorable to the petitioner, that there had been at most a mutual scuffle which was instigated by the petitioner and that petitioner’s only motivation in filing the protective order was to obtain custody of the child. This is a complete misuse of the domestic violence statute, i.e. protective order statute. At the conclusion of the petitioner’s case I made a Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner’s Protective Order as he had not met his burden of proof establishing by clear and convincing evidence that abuse had occurred. The Court agreed that even in the light most favorable to the petitioner, he had not met his burden and dismissed the Protective Order without the need for my client to put on her case. In this particular situation, the Court was keenly aware of the purpose and intent of the domestic violence statute and did not grant the Final Order.

Cases such as the above with baseless allegations are frequently filed with the Court with mal intent, and at the initial stage the Temporary Orders are granted because at the Temporary Protective Order stage of the process often the respondent is not even present. It is not until the Final Hearing that the respondent even has an opportunity to be heard. If you are either a Petitioner or Respondent, you would likely benefit from the assistance and advice of experienced legal counsel. For more information on your particular situation you should speak with an experienced family law attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 21, 2011 in Criminal Defense

As an Aggressive and Experienced Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney, I have represented dozens of people who have been charged with Sexual Solicitation of a Minor. In most of these cases, the defendant is caught in a sting operation conducted by state of federal law enforcement.

I represented a client in one such case this week in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The State was seeking a sentence of 10 years in the Division of Corrections with all but 5 years to be suspended. I was able to get him a sentence of just 4 weekends to be served in the Baltimore County Detention Center. This, in spite of the fact that we ended up in front of a judge who is widely regarded as a very tough sentencing judge and the fact that we literally had no defense. How did this happen? The answer is we put together a compelling presentation of mitigating facts and circumstances to argue for a sentence much less than the State was demanding.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 21, 2011 in Criminal Defense

STSW attorneys Andrew White gained a high stakes victory in the Baltimore City Circuit Court in a case in which an STSW client was charged with multiple felony counts involving the possession of a handgun. The client had been charged after a car in which he was riding crashed on a northern Baltimore City roadway. According to witnesses at the scene, a handgun was thrown from the vehicle after the car flipped over multiple times and came to rest on its side. The witnesses described how the driver of the vehicle threw the gun from the car, which witnesses told police was being operated at a high rate of speed prior to the crash. The driver testified as a prosecution witness and testified that the STSW client gave her the firearm after the crash occurred. She also testified that the client possessed the firearm because he wanted to confront persons who had reportedly hurt his son. At trial, Mr. White and Ms. Murphy discredited the cooperating witnesses and used the physical evidence from the crash scene to show that the prosecution’s version of events was not possible. In issuing the "not guilty" verdict, the Circuit Court Judge agreed that the prosecution’s version of the case was undermined by the evidence adduced by Mr. White and Ms. Murphy at trial as well as by the extensive cross-examination of the cooperating witness.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 18, 2011 in Divorce

Currently, Maryland law regarding divorce involves two different waiting periods in order to obtain a no fault divorce. The one year waiting period applies when BOTH parties are seeking the divorce, i.e. the separation is MUTUAL and voluntary. The two year waiting period applies when only one of the two parties would like the divorce. We had previously discussed this distinction in our October 2010 blog. The Maryland legislature has passed a bill eliminating the two year waiting period, and now no fault divorces can proceed with only a one year separation, eliminating the need for the Court to consider if one or both parties is seeking the divorce for grounds purposes. The Maryland Daily Record reported on April 17, 2011 that this new legislation will go into effect October 1, 2011. The chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Bobby Zirkin believes that the two year separation period is only extending volatile situations and allowing parties to drag the litigation out in order to bargain for those items they want in the divorce. He also believes that this is a step in the right direction in his effort to reduce the waiting period to only six months, as we discussed in our February 17, 2011 blog .

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 13, 2011 in Personal Injury

WBAL is reporting in an online article that the worker killed Tuesday at the Dundalk Marine Terminal has been identified as 46-year-old James Mills Gillus of Dundalk. Mr. Gillus was tragically killed when he was attempting to climb back into his vehicle after he noticed it was rolling backward and was struck by the vehicle. The vehicle he was operating is used to haul dumpsters around the marine terminal. State and Federal Workplace officials are investigating this accident. Mr. Gillus’ family will be entitled to Workers’ Compensation Death Benefits because he was killed during the course and scope of his employment. Additionally, under certain situations, they may be able to recover in a wrongful death action.

For more information or a free consultation, please contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC. or contact Andrew G. Slutkin with further questions or inquiries at 410-385-2786

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 13, 2011 in Personal Injury

Baltimore personal injury attorney, Craig Zissel, of the firm Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White won a contested auto accident case in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County last Tuesday. Mr. Zissel’s client was injured when the vehicle he was riding in was struck from behind while stopped at a stop light. GEICO denied liability for the accident claiming there was no way our client could have been injured due to the minor nature of the accident. Additionally, they pointed out the many prior accidents our client had been involved in. After deliberating for an hour, the Montgomery County jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for the full amount of his medicals plus an award for non-economic damages to compensate him for his pain and suffering. Prior to trial, GEICO had offered no money to settle the case. This verdict represents a great result for Montgomery County, which is historically a defense-oriented, conservative jurisdiction.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 25, 2011 in Federal Crimes & White Collar Crimes

The demise of the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines in 2005 has given rise to amazing opportunities for skilled federal criminal defense attorneys to achieve tremendous results for their clients. Nowhere is this truer than in federal bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud investigations and prosecutions. Federal "white collar" fraud prosecutions typically involve persons with little or no criminal background and with substantial ties to the community and strong family support. Surprisingly, many federal criminal defense attorneys do not take advantage of these factors in defending their clients. Under the old mandatory federal sentencing guidelines, family circumstances, family support, and community ties were generally prohibited as bases for sentencing reductions. Such circumstances were only to be considered if they were "extraordinary" and, even then, federal judges were hesitant to reduce sentences by any significant amount based on these factors.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 16, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

As I stated in an earlier post, eye doctor Dr. John Kiely has been sued by the federal goverment for fruad for allegedly performing unnecessary procedures. Several people have asked me for a copy of the Federal Goverment’s civil fraud lawsuit againat eye doctor Dr. John Kiely. Here it is: Download file

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 16, 2011 in Medical Malpractice

A Baltimore eye doctor has been accused by the U.S. government of committing fraud by billing thousands and thousands of dollars for hundreds of unnecessary eye procedures that he performed on dozens of people at an outpatient clinic owned by Bon Secours Hospital. The accusations are set forth in a federal lawsuit which claims that between 10/29/02 and 4/14/09 Dr. John Arthur Kiely performed laser eye surgery on patients who did not need the procedure, and thus falsely billed Medicare and Medicaid for the unnecessary procedures. Dr. Kiely also has offices on St. Paul Street and Mercy Medical Center.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Kiely sometimes performed the unnecessary procedures multiple times on a single patient, which clearly is medical malpractice. The procedures are alleged to have caused people to suffer unnecessary medical complications, including blindness in one woman. Dr. Kiely has had offices on St. Paul Street and at Mercy Medical Center.

The allegations of against Dr. Kiely sound similar to those against two other Maryland doctors. The first is Dr. Mark G. Midei who has been sued in hundreds of cases for allegedly placing unnecessary cardiac stents into patients at St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson. The second is Dr. John R. McLean, a Salisbury doctor who was criminally indicted for fraud resulting from allegedly placing unnecessary stents in patients at Peninsula Regional Medical Center.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 16, 2011 in Family Law

I recently defended a modification of child support case (the father was seeking a decrease) in the Circuit Court for Howard County and after a hearing the Court determined there was not a material change in circumstance to warrant a modification of the child support currently being paid to my client.

I believe the concept of a ‘material change in circumstance’ can often be misinterpreted to mean ANY change in circumstance, and that is not the case. In this particular situation the parties divorced late 2009, and child support and non-modifiable alimony were calculated and agreed upon. At the time of divorce, the parties agreed to leave the alimony payment outside of the child support calculation and agreed to a slightly higher amount of child support as they believed it was in the children’s best interest. Less than a year later, the father (ex-husband) filed to modify child support, seeking a lower amount, alleging that he changed jobs and was earning less (about 5% less), his ex-wife was earning a small income, and alimony should now be incorporated into the child support guideline worksheet.

In the State of Maryland, the Court may modify a child support award subsequent to the filing of a motion for modification and upon a showing of a material change in circumstance, See Annotated Code of Maryland Family Law Article 12-104. The issue becomes what is a ‘material’ change in circumstance. A change has been determined to be ‘material’ when it meets two requirements (1) the change must be relevant to the level of support a child is actually receiving or entitled to receive, and (2) the change must be of a sufficient magnitude to justify judicial modification of the support order. Oftentimes, a change that affects the income pool used to calculate child support obligations upon which the child support award was based; incarceration of a parent; increase and/or decrease in parenting time; are all relevant to whether there has been a ‘material’ change in circumstance.

Continue Reading ››