Gladis v. Gladisova

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Slavomir Gladis v. Eva Gladisova, No. 127, September Term, 2003. [Family Law Article Child Support Guidelines, held; a trial court may no t deviate from the Child Support Guidelines to account for the lower cost of raising a child in an area outside of the United States w here the cost of living is apprec iably less than in Maryland.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 127 September Term, 2003 SLAV OMIR GLAD IS v EVA GLADISOVA Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. Opinion by Battaglia, J. Raker and Harrell, JJ., dissent Filed: August 24, 2004 We issued a writ of certiorari in this case to determine whether a trial judge, i n establishing an amount of child support pursuant to Maryland Code, Sections 12-201 through 12-204 of the Fam ily Law Arti cle (1984, 1999 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.) (hereinafter the Guidelines ), may deviate from the Guidelines to account for the lower cost of raising a child in an area outside of the United States where th e cost of livin g is appreciably less than in Marylan d. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the Guidelines apply without regard to the low er cost o f raising a child in anothe r count ry. I. Background Slavom ir Gladis and Eva Gladisova, both citizens of the Slovak Republic, married in that country on February 20, 1993. Their daughter, Ivana, was born on November 4, 1993. In 1994, Mr. Gladis moved to the United States, and he last saw Ivana in April of 1994. On March 11, 1998 , Mr. Glad is filed a Co mplaint fo r Absolute Divorce in the Circu it Court for Baltim ore City. On A pril 24, 1998 , the Circuit Court entered a Judgment of Absolute Divorce, granting Ms. Gladisova custody of Ivana and Mr. Gladis the right to see Ivana at reasonable times. The decree also charged Mr. Gladis with Ivana s g eneral support and m aintena nce, bu t it did no t specif y the amo unt. On June 5, 2002, Ms. Gladisova filed a Petition for the establishment of child su pport in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Interstate Fam ily Support Act (hereinafter M UIFSA ).1 In accorda nce with M UIFSA , Ms. Gla disova was represented by the Office of the State s Attorney for Baltimore City, an agency authorized to seek enforcement of child support orders. See Code, § 1 0-319 of the Family La w Article (stating that a support enforcement agency shall provide services to a plaintiff in a proceeding under MUIFSA). Mr. Gladis conceded that the Circuit Court for Ba ltimore City had jur isdiction over th e amo unt of h is child s uppor t obligat ion. On March 4, 2003, a hearing w as held in the Circuit Court for B altimore City before Master Theresa A. Furnari to establish the amount of child support. On May 30, 2003, Master Furnari issued a Report and Recommendations, in which she found th at Mr. G ladis had a high sch ool educa tion, work s as a mech anic at Performance Auto Group, earns $41,773 1 MUIFSA, codified under Maryland Code, Sections 10-301 through 10-359 of the Family Law A rticle (19 84, 1999 Repl. Vol.), generally provides that the circuit court may issue an order to establish the child support obli gation of a Maryland r esident w ho is responsible for supporting a child residing in another State. See Code, § 10-317(b)(1) (providing the circuit cou rt with the authority to issue or enforce a support order to the extent otherwise authorized by law when such action has been sought by another State ). Although the dissent indicates that, the General Assembly did not intend [the Guidelines] to be utilized in a situation where the custodial parent and child are living outside of the United States, MUIF SA clear ly defines a S tate to include a foreign jurisdiction that has enacted a law or established procedures for issuance and enforcement of support orders which are substan tially similar to the pro cedure s unde r [MU IFSA ]. Id. § 10-301(t)(2)(ii). The Slovak Republic has enacted a law substantially similar to MUIFSA , as evidenced by the United States declaration that the Slovak Republic is a foreign reciprocating state for purposes of child suppo rt enfor cemen t. See 42 U.S.C. § 659a (1996) (stating that, if a foreign country has established procedures for the enforcement of child support that are substantially in conformity with the statute, the country may be declared a foreign reciprocating country ); 65 Fed. Reg. 31,953 (2000) (stating that, effective February 1, 1998, the Slovak Rep ublic has been declared a foreign reciprocating c ountry. ). -2- annually, and has health insuran ce through his emp loyer. She found that M r. Gladis lives in Kingsville, Maryland, with his wife, who sells real estate, and their seven month-old child. The Master found that Ms. Gladisova works as a nurse, earns the equivalent of $430 per month,2 and pays ap proximate ly $2.97 per month for health insurance. She lives in the Slovak R epublic w ith Ivana, her brother, and her parents in her parents home. According to the Master s Report and Recommendations, Ivana attends fifth grade at a public school located approxim ately 200 yards fro m her ho me. She p articipates in da nce and m usic programs after school, attends summer camp, skis, bicycles, and plays the organ. The Master f urther determ ined that Mr. Gladis has provided support for Ivana by sending cash, clothes, and school supplie s. She found that, in 1998, Mr. Gladis sent $1800 to Ivana throu gh his cousin, w ho was v isiting him an d that, in 2001, he sent $1500 to Ivana through another cousin. According to Master Furnari, Mr. Gladis gave his father $2000 to give to Ivana in 2002. Relying on Ms. Gladisova s financial statements, Master Furnari also found th at, including monthly and annual expenses, the total average month ly expense for Ivana s care and support was the equivalent of $275.88 in United States dollars. She recommended that Mr. Gladis pa y $300 per m onth in child support, noting that the amount was a deviation of $197.00 per mon th from th e $497 monthly amount that should have been paid under the Guidelines. She concluded that the deviation [from the Guidelines] is in the best interest 2 The parties had stipulated that one U.S. dollar equals 43.047 Slovak Crowns. -3- of the child as it strikes a balance between [Mr. Gladis ] obligation to contribute to the support of the child [and his] obligation to contribute and meet the needs of his family in the United States and permits the child to benefit from [his] income in the United States. Master Furnari also proposed that Mr. Gladis pay an additional $50 monthly until an arrearage of $1600 was paid in full. The amount of arrearage was calculated as twelve months of retroactive child support payments of $300 per mo nth minus $200 0 that Mr. Gladis claimed had been paid in October of 2002. The M aster also recommen ded that Mr. Gladis should be permitted to list Ivana as a dependent on his tax return. Both parties filed exceptions to Master Furnari s Report and R ecommend ations. Mr. Gladis disagreed with M aster Furnari s calculations of Ivana s monthly expenses based on Ms. Gladisova s financial statement. He maintained, for example, that vaccinations were listed as a mon thly expense instead of an annual expense, and that expenses such as an organ, bicycle, and skis are one-time expenses instead of annual expenses. Ultimately, he contended that $233 was the proper child support amount. In Ms. Gladisova s cross-exceptions, she argued, among other things, that the Master erred by deviating from a strict application of the Guidelines. On August 11, 2003, Judge Edward Hargadon for the Circ uit Court fo r Baltimore City held a hearing to consider the parties exceptions. On October 17, 2003, the court ordered Mr. Gladis to p ay, on an interim basis, $225 in child support, concluding that applying the Guidelines is inappropriate when there is a wide disp arity in the cost of living. The judge -4- found that Ms. Gladisova s actual monthly expenses for Ivana equaled $251.75,3 an amount significantly less than the $497 monthly payment that the Guidelines would require. Judge Hargadon then referred the case to the Master for a determination of the costs that would allow Ivana to benefit from [Mr. Gladis ] economic position, so that she may enjoy, in the Slovak Republic, a lifestyle she w ould have had if her parents had remained together in the United States. The order also called for further findings by the Master regarding whether Mr. Gladis had paid $2000 for Ivana s support in October of 2002. Ms. Gladisova filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Circuit Court s Order, which Mr. Gladis opposed. On November 17, 2003, Judge Joseph McCurdy for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted Ms. Gladisova s motion and ordered that Mr. Gladis pay $497 per month in accordance with a strict application of the Guidelines, as well as an additional $50 per month toward arrearages of $8,831.13. Judge McCurdy calculation of arrearages represents 77 weeks of retroactive support from the date of Ms. Gladisova s filing through Novem ber 30, 200 3. The jud ge then ref erred the ca se to the Domestic R elations Master for findings on the issue of whether Mr. Gladis was entitled to a credit toward the arrearages for his alleged payment of $2000 in October of 2002.4 3 Judge Hargadon recalculated Ivana s expenses by eliminating certain one-time expenses and by including certain medical and dental expenses as monthly expenses. 4 Judge McCurdy s order to pay child support was for the payment of money and, thus, an appealable interlocutory order under Maryland Code, Section 12-303(3)(v) of the Courts and Judicial P roceed ings A rticle (19 84, 200 2 Rep l. Vol.). Pappas v. Pappas, 287 Md. 455, 462, 413 A.2d 549, 552 (198 0); accord Frey v. Frey, 298 Md. 552, 556, 471 A.2d 705, 707 (198 4); cf. Anthony Plumbing of Maryland, Inc. v. Attorney General, 298 Md. 11, -5- On December 16, 2003, Mr. Gladis noted an appeal to the Court of Special App eals, and this Court, on its own initiative and prior to any proceedings in the intermediate appellate court, iss ued a w rit of cer tiorari. Gladis v. Gladisova, 379 Md. 227 , 841 A.2d 341 (2004). Mr. Gladis presents two questions: 1. Whether Judge McCurdy erred in entering the Amended Order dated December 1, 2003, strictly applying the Maryland Child Support Guidelines pursuant to Md. Code Ann. FL § 12-202? 2. Whether Judge McCurdy erred in applying the Maryland Child Support Guidelines without proper consideration to any circumstances [Mr. Gladis] could have asserted for deviation therefrom had he been provided opportunity to do so? Because a lower cost of living in the child s locality is not a proper basis for deviating from Guidelines, we hold that Judge McCurdy did not abuse his discretion when he determined that the G uideline s establis h Mr. G ladis s c hild sup port ob ligation . II. Discussion A. The Guidelines 20, 467 A.2d 504, 508 (1983) (reviewing th e history of Section 12-303 a nd stating that orders for the payment of mon ey includes o rders in equ ity such as tho se arising fro m dom estic relations litigation ). Judge McCurdy s decision to a pply the Guid elines, rather tha n mitigate the amount to reflect the Slovak standard of living, estab lished the sp ecific amo unt of child support to be pa id mon thly. The u nsettled factua l matter o f whe ther M r. Gladis had paid $2000 in Octo ber of 2 002 do es not re nder Ju dge M cCurd y s order u nappe alable. See Pappas, 287 Md. at 457-58, 463, 413 A.2d at 549-550, 552 (holding that a court s orders involving child custod y and suppo rt were app ealable under Section 12-303, even though the orders had not resolved numerous outstanding issues, such as the exact amounts of perma nent su pport, a limony, an d coun sel fees owed ). -6- The case of Voishan v. Palma, 327 Md. 318, 609 A.2d 319 (1992) was the first of our cases involving the Guidelines, and we took the oppor tunity there to exp lain what motivated the General Assembly to create them: The General Assembly enacted these guidelines in 1989 to comply with federal law and regulations. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 651667 (1982 & 1984 Supp. II) and 45 C.F.R. § 302.56 (1989). The federal mandate required that the guidelines be established and based on specific descriptive a nd num eric criteria and res ult in a computation of the support obligation. Id. When drafting the guidelines, the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee had before it Development of Guidelines For Ch ild Support Orders: Advisory Panel Recommendations and Final Report, U.S. De partment o f Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement. This report explained that the need for the guidelines was threefold: (1) to remedy a shortfall in the level of awards that do not reflect the actual costs of raising children, (2) to improve the consiste ncy, and therefore the equity, of child support awards, and (3) to improve the efficiency of court processes for adjudicating child support. Id. at 322, 609 A.2d at 3 21 (footnote om itted). As originally adopted in 1989, the Guidelines were merely advisory. 1989 Md. Laws ch. 2. In 1990, however, the General Assembly amended the Guidelines, making them mandatory. 1990 Md. Laws. Ch. 58. Section 12-202(a)(1) of the Family Law Article now states unequivocally that the court shall use the child support guidelines in any proceeding to establish or m odify child sup port. The Guideline s apply unless th e parents mo nthly combined adjusted income exceeds $10,000, in which case the court may use its discretion in setting th e amo unt of c hild sup port. Id. § 12-204(d); Voishan, 327 Md. at 324, 331-32, 609 A.2d at 322, 326. We hav e stated that trial court[s] must adhere to the Legislature s -7- plan for calculatin g the amo unt and ch aracter of a c hild support award . See Goldberg v. Miller, 371 Md. 591, 603-04, 810 A.2d 947, 954 (2002) (citing Drum mond v . State, 350 Md. 502, 511-12, 714 A .2d 163, 168 (199 8); Walsh v. Walsh, 333 Md. 492, 498, 635 A.2d 1340, 1343 (1994)). The Guidelines are based on the Income Shares Model, one of a number of different models recommended to the General Assembly by the Advisory Panel on Child Support Guidelines. Voishan, 327 Md. at 322, 609 A.2d at 321. Following the Income Shares M odel, the General Assembly created the table in Section 12-20 4(e), setting fo rth the basic c hild support obligation depending on the parents combined income and number of children. Id. at 323, 609 A.2d at 321. In general, if the parents monthly income does not reach $10,000, the [child support] obligation is calculated by determining each parent s monthly income, using the table at §12-20 4(e) to determine the parents combined monthly support obligation, and dividing this obligation between the two parents in proportion to their incomes. Wills v. Jones, 340 M d. 480, 4 84-85 , 667 A .2d 331, 332 (1995). The judge must then add together any work-re lated child care expenses, extraordin ary medical expenses, and school and transportation expense s and alloca te this total between the parents in proportion to their adjusted actual incomes. Voishan, 327 Md. at 323, 609 A.2d at 322 (citing Code, § 12204(g)-(i) of the Fam ily Law Artic le). The am ount of ch ild support th at results from this calculation is presumptively the correct am ount of child suppo rt to be awarded. Section 12-202(a )(2)(i); Walsh, 95 Md. Ap p. 710, 715, 622 A .2d 825, 828 (199 3). -8- The presumption of correctness may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that the result under the G uidelines w ould be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. Section 12-202(a)(2)(ii); Petrini v. Petrini, 336 Md. 453, 461, 648 A.2d 1016, 1019 (199 4). In determining whether a child support award is unjust or inappropriate, courts may consider a number of factors enumerated by the Guidelines, including: 1. the terms of any existing separation or property settlement agreement or court order, including any provisions for payment of mortgages or marital debts, payment of college education expenses, the terms of any use and posse ssion order or right to occupy to the family home und er an agreement, any direct payments made for the benefit of the children required by agreement or order, or any other financial considerations set out in an existing separation or property settlement agreement or court order; and 2. the presence in the household of either parent of other children to whom that parent owes a duty of support and the expenses for whom that parent is directly contributing. Id. § 12-202(a)(2)(iii). The duty to support other children in the hous ehold of e ither parent, however, cannot form the so le basis for rebutting the presumption that the Guidelines establish the corr ect amo unt of c hild sup port. Id. § 12-202(a)(2)(iv). When a trial court determines that the Guideline s establish an unjust or ina ppropriate child support amount and then awards an amount of child support that departs from the Guidelines, it is required to make a written finding or specific finding on the record stating the reasons for departing from the guidelines. Id. § 12-202(a)(2)(v). At a minimum, the findings must state what the award would have been under the Guidelines, how the aw ard -9- varies from the guidelines, and how the finding serves th e best in terest of the child . Id. § 12202(a)(2)(v)(2). B. Child support awards made pursuant to the Gu idelines will be disturbed only if there is a clear abuse of discretio n. Voishan, 327 Md. at 331, 609 A.2d at 32 6. In this case, Mr. Gladis contends that Judge M cCurdy abused his discre tion by ordering a child support aw ard based on a strict application of the Guidelines. Mr. Gladis contends that the $497 m onthly obligation, as derived from the G uidelines, is u njust and ina ppropriate because th e monthly cost of raising Ivana in the Slovak Republic is the equivalent of merely $233.5 Given the vast economic disparity between the United States and th e Slovak R epublic, G ladis suggests that the trial judge should have departed from the Guidelines and ordered a lesser mon thly obligation to ac count fo r the lower co st of raising Iv ana i n her hom e cou ntry. The State maintains that the Guidelines do not allow for a deviation based on differences in the standards of living in different countries. Moreover, according to the State, Judge McCurd y s application of the Guidelines in this case does not create an unjust or inapprop riate child support obligation because the amount neither ex cessively burdens Mr. Gladis, inappropriately enriches the child or Ms. Gladisova nor results in an award that is out 5 Throughout the proceedings below , there have been several different estimates of the monthly cost of raising Iv ana in the S lovak Re public. M aster Furna ri determine d it to be $275.88, Judge Hargodon thought it was $251.75, the State suggests it is $243.45, and M r. Gladis concede d that it was a t least $233.0 0. The ex act amou nt is not relevant, however, because both parties agree that M r. Gladis s ch ild support obligation, as determined by the Guidelines, far exceeds the cost of raising Ivana in the Slovak Republic. -10- of pro portion to awa rds rou tinely com puted u nder th e Guid elines. The only cases that have considered the specific issue raised in this case or a variation of it come from out of s tate, and we ha ve disc overed only a few . At least two courts in our sister states have determined that differen ces in the stan dard of livin g in differe nt geograp hic areas do not justify a deviation from statutory child support guidelines. In In re Marriage of Beecher, 582 N.W.2d 510 (Iowa 1998), the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the noncustodial father s increased cost of living in California did not justify a departure from the child support award calculated under Iowa s child support guidelines. The trial court had reduced the amount awarded under the guidelin es based o n the fathe r s argume nt that his cost of living had increased when he moved from Iowa to California and purchased a more expensive home. Id. at 512. In reversing the trial court s judgment, the court stated: We do not find any special circu mstances in this record justifying a downward departure form the guidelines. [The father s] move to California w as for a hig her paying job . His increased income inured to the benefit of his sons and results in the corresponding increase in the amounts due for their support under the guidelin es. The more ex pensive h ome in C alifornia was intended to benefit the boys. Both the income and more expensive home however also inured to [the father s] own benefit. The California home and the higher living cost there are not grounds for departure from the guidelines. Id. at 514 (emphasis add ed). In a case that is more on point, Edwards v. Dominick, 815 So.2d 23 6 (La. App. 200 2), the non-cu stodial fathe r contende d that his child support obligation should be less than the amount established by Louisiana s statutory child supp ort guideline s because his daughter s -11- standard of living in Sou th Afr ica diff ered fro m the sta ndard o f living i n Lou isiana. Id. at 239. The cou rt rejected the a rgumen t for two re asons. First, the court stated that the father did not present evidence of an amount of child support that would be adequate for the support of a child in South Africa . Id. Second, the court obse rved that the father faile d to cite any Louisiana law to sup port his argu ment that the standard of living in the place where the minor child resides is a relevant factor in determination of the child support obligation. Id. Based on these reasons, the court held that there is no indication from the record before us that the applicatio n of the gu idelines wo uld not be in the best intere st of the child or would be inequitable to the parties . . . . Id. Other out-of-state c ourts have held that de viation from the guidelines may be appropriate based on the standards of living in different localities. In Booth v. B ooth, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (Ohio 1989), for example, the court reviewed an award of child support and addressed particularly wh ether the trial co urt could deviate from the guidelines based on the different standards of living in Ohio and New York . Id. at 1030. Upholding the award, the court concluded that deviation from the guidelines based on the husband s high cost of living in New York was permis sible. Id. The court sta ted, if w e were to assum e, arguendo, that the trial court had failed to con sider the resp ective costs o f living of th e parties, it may have indeed been unreasonable for the court to ignore such economic realities and, thus, the child support order might have amounted to an abuse of discretion. Id.; see also In re Marriage of Welch, 905 P.2d 132, 136 (Mont. 1995) (holding that the non-custodial parent s higher -12- cost of liv ing in Washingto n, D.C., if sub stantiated by concrete evidence, was an acceptab le reason[] for the granting of a varianc e from the child sup port award established by the guidelin es); In re Marriage of Dortch, 801 P.2d 279, 283 (Wash. App. 1990) (noting that the high c ost of living in the non-custodial parent s domicile is a consideration which may wa rrant a d eviation from th e supp ort sche dule . . . . ). In People ex rel. A.K., 72 P.3d 402 (Col. App. 2003), the non-custodial parent sought a deviation from Colorado s presum ptively correct ch ild support guidelines on the basis that his children, who lived in Russia, sustained econom ic circumstances that w ere very different from those on which the guidelines are based. Id. at 404. Considering evidence that certain exp enses of th e child wo uld be vastly greater in Russia than in Colorado, the trial court refus ed to lowe r the child support obligation established by applying the guidelines. Id. at 404-05. Nevertheless, the appellate court remanded the case, concluding that the trial court, in deciding whether application of the guidelines would be inequitable, unjust, or inappropriate, should have considered evidence presented by the custodial parent that the children s expenses in Russia were significantly lower than the award calculated under t he guid elines. Id. at 405.6 6 In People ex. rel. A.K., some of the evidence that was ignored at trial had nothing to do with the different standards of living in Colorado and Russia. The trial court had not considered that the father provided and fully paid for a residence for the children, an expense that is included in the guidelines presumptive amount for reasonable and necessary child suppo rt. Id. at 405. In other words, the appellate court was concerned that the application of the child support guidelines accounted for expenses for which the father had already provided. Thus, the different standards of living in Colorado and Russia were not the only reasons w hy the court b elieved the application of the guidelines may have been -13- Although we recognize that the state courts addressing the issue have conflicting views on the subject, we believe that the better position is to prohibit courts from deviating from the Guidelines based on the standards of living in d ifferent area s. This con clusion is most consistent with the principles underlying Maryland s child support law. The Guidelines reflect the Legislature s plan for determining child support, and the courts must follow that plan. See Goldberg, 371 Md. at 603-04, 810 A.2d at 954 (citing Drummond, 350 Md. at 51112, 714 A.2 d at 168; Walsh, 333 Md. at 498, 635 A.2d at 1343). The Gu idelines were intended to ensure th at awards sufficiently me t the needs of children, improve the consistency and equity of awards, and improve the efficiency of the processes for adju dicating ch ild support. Voishan, 327 Md. at 322, 609 A.2d at 32 1. To carry ou t these goals, th e carefully crafted provisions of the Guidelines establish consistent awards notwithstanding what differences may exis t in the sta ndards of living in diffe rent geo graphi c areas. Simply put, the General Assemb ly did not mak e one s ge ographica l standard o f living part o f the child suppo rt form ula. In addition, the G eneral As sembly enacted the Guidelines based on the premise that a child should receive the same proportion of parental income, and thereby enjoy the unjust or inappropriate. The case of In re Marriage of Anderson, 895 P.2d 1161 (Col. App. 1995) confirms that a deviation from the Colorado guidelines must be supported by more than just evidence of different standards of living in d ifferent loca lities. There, the c ourt noted that a finding that one parent has a higher cost of living will no t, in and of itself, ordinarily justify deviating from the guidelines. Id. at 1164 . -14- standard of living, he or she would have experienced had the child s parents remained togethe r. Voishan, 327 Md. at 322, 609 A.2d at 321. In Voishan, we underscored this foundational concept and rejected the f ather s argu ment that h is child was entitled only to the maximum amount of support as set forth in the table under Section 12-204(e), even though the parents combined monthly income exceeded $10,000. Id. at 325, 609 A.2d at 322-23. We held that, in an above-guidelines case, the schedule unde r Section 12 -204(e) c ould provide a presumptive minimum basic award, but the legislature did not intend to cap the basic child support obligation at the upper limit of the schedule. Id. at 325, 609 A.2d at 323. Rather, the child of parents who earn more than $10,000 per month may be entitled to a higher standard of living and more child support than a child of parents who earn exactly $10,00 0 per m onth. Id. at 326, 609 A.2d at 323. This rationale applies with equal force in the case at bar. Here, like in Voishan, the child support award would allow the child to enjoy an above-minimum standard of living that corresponds to the father s economic position. There is no question in the present case that Judge McCurdy s award of child support exceeds the minimum of what is needed to live normally according to the Slovak Republic s standards. We have made clear, nonetheless, that a child should receive the same proportion of parental income, and thereby enjoy the standard of living, he or she would have experienced had the child s parents remained together. Voishan, 327 Md. at 322, 609 A.2d at 321. Had Mr. Gladis and Ms. Gladisova remained together (in Maryland), Ivana would have enjoyed certain amenities that are -15- generally not availab le in her native country. The increased a mount o f child supp ort will allow Ivana to experience some of those same amenities, allowing her to experience a lifestyle that correspo nds more closely to the eco nomic po sition of M r. Gladis. Th e child support calculated under the Guidelines, therefore, only serves Ivana s best interests an d is the app ropriate measu re of M r. Gladi s s oblig ation. Further, one of the primary purposes of the Guidelines was to limit the role of trial courts in deciding the specific amount of child support to be awarded in different cases by limiting the necessity for factual findings that had been required under pre-guidelines case law. Petrini, 336 Md. at 460, 648 A.2d at 1019. Allowing a deviation from the Guidelines based on the stand ards of living in differen t localities would e ncourag e trial courts to examine those circumstances on a case-by-case basis and, no doubt, depart from the guidelines more frequently. How, for instance, could fact finders consistently determine the precise differences in the standards of living in two different countries, given that the value of currency changes constantly and that middle-class living conditions in Maryland may be considered poverty or extravagance elsewhere? If this complex inquiry becomes a factor in determining child support awards, it would only serve to make the support awards less uniform and predictable and more subject to individual whim and manipulation. See In re Marriage of Anderson, 895 P.2d at 1164 (quoting the Colorado Child Support Commission Report (1991)). T his is the very resu lt the Gene ral Assem bly hoped to avoid in enacting the Guidelines. Consequently, for the sake of continued consistency in child support awards and -16- to ensure that a child enjoys the same standard of living as the parents had they remained together, we hold that the lower cost of raising a child in a different country or state does not justify a downward deviation from the Guidelines. Judge McCurdy, therefore, did not abuse his discretion in ordering Mr. Gladis to pay an amount of child support according to a strict application of the Guidelines. Although no Maryland case has addressed the specific issue raised in this case, the Court of Special Appeals, not long ago, faced an analogous question in Smith v. Freeman, 149 Md. App. 1, 814 A.2d 65 (200 2). The reasoning in that c ase is consistent with our holding here. In Smith, Freeman , a professio nal footba ll player, sought to prevent an increase to his child support obligation based on an annual salary boost from $1.2 to $3.2 million dollars. Id. at 17-1 8, 814 A .2d at 74 -75. The trial court had determined that the salary increase did not constitute a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the child suppo rt awar d. Id. at 10, 814 A.2d at 70. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed, however, and rem anded the case for con sideratio n of tho se chan ges in c ircums tances. Id. at 30, 814 A.2d a t 82. The Guidelines did not apply in Smith because the parties income exceeded $10,000 per month, but the Court of Special Appeals discussed an issue that is very relevant to the instant case: When the child and non-custodial parent have two different standards of living, which standard sh ould determ ine the am ount of the child s supp ort? Id. at 31, 814 A.2d at 82. For guidance to the trial court on remand, the court reviewed a number of cases -17- involving wea lthy non-c usto dial p aren ts wh o objecte d to c hild supp ort payments beyond what they con sidered to be the need s of th e childre n. Judge H ollander for the court observed: The cases cited above recognize that the con cept of n eed is relative, almost metaphysical, and varies with the particular circumstances of the people involved, as well as their culture, values, and wealth. To be sure, many people, adults and children alike, have far mo re than they truly need to survive, or even to live comfortably. On the other hand, there is virtually no limit to the luxuries that many extremely wealthy celebrities seem to enjoy regularly. Even among middle class populations, there is a range of tastes with varying costs. While some Marylanders are amply satisf ied with a vacation in Oce an C ity, others prefer to vacation in places like Martha s Vineyard, despite the fact that both beaches front on the Atlantic Ocean. Simply put, given a choice between rhinestones and rubies, many people opt for the latter if they can afford to do so. Id. at 32, 814 A.2d at 83. The court furthe r noted a c hild of a m ulti-millionaire g enerally expects a lifestyle of unusual privilege and advantage and that children of w ealth are entitled to every expense reasonable for a child of affluence. Id. at 32-33, 814 A.2d at 83. The court rejected Freeman s suggestion that the child did not deserve increased sup port because the child w as not a ccusto med to her fath er s w ealthy eco nomic status. Id. at 33, 814 A.2d at 84 . Rather, the c ourt stated, ev ery child is entitled to a level of support commensurate with the parents economic position. Id. In the instant case, like in Smith, the non-custodial parent arg ues that the child s needs should determine the appropriate amount of child su pport. A child s needs, however, depend on the parents economic position. Th e advantages of M r. Gladis s -18- econom ic strength, accordingly, should flow to his child living in a nation of less wealth, just like the advantages of F reeman s extrem e wea lth shou ld pass to his child . The Guidelines apply in this case regardless of whether Ivana lives in Maryland or the Slovak Republic. C. Mr. Gladis raises a number of miscellaneous arguments for why the trial judge sho uld have deviated f rom the G uidelines. First, he claims that his right to reasonable and liberal visitation under the Judgment of Absolute D ivorce justifies a reduction in his child sup port obligation. Although the matter of the visitation schedule has not been established, Mr. Gladis argues that the trial court should have abrogated his child support obligation for the summer month s, the o nly reason able tim e visitatio n could occur u nder th e circum stances . This argument fails. As Mr. Gladis admits, he has not seen Ivana for ten years. In addition, because no order has established a visitation schedule, this Court cannot possibly determine how or whether Mr. Gladis s visitation will affect the parties economic situations or the child s needs. The rec ord in this cas e simply does not suppo rt Mr. Glad is s claim on this matter. Mr. Gladis further asserts that the trial court should have deviated from the Guidelines because, at the time the Amended Order was entered, there had been a substantial increase in the cost of caring for the ch ild of his current marriage. Th is argument also fails. M r. Gladis did not present evidence before the Master of any expenses associated with his second child, nor did he request a new factual hearing to present such evidence while Ms. Gladisova s Motion to Alter or A mend the Circuit Court s Order was pending. Even if Mr. -19- Gladis had presented evidence of increased child care expenses related to his second child, that evidence alone cann ot justify a d eviation from th e Guid elines. See Code, § 12- 202(a)(2)(iv ). Although, according to Section 12-202(a)(2)(iii)(2) of the Family Law Article, the expense of other children in the non-custodial parent s household is relevant to whether an award is unjust or inappropriate, Section 12-202(a)(2)(iv) expressly states that evidence of this support obligation, by itself, cannot rebut the presumption that the award under the Guide lines is correct. The trial court s judg ment to not deviate from the Guidelines on this ground was not a clear abuse of discretion. Fina lly, Mr. Gla dis comp lains that he cannot claim Ivana as a dependent on his tax return and tha t, if the Slovak Republic has a tax structure similar to the United States, Ms. Gladisova would have an additional tax benefit associated with claiming Ivana as a depende nt. This contention is founded entirely on speculation. The record, which contains no evidence of the Slovak Republic s tax structure, also provides no indication that Ms. Gladisova would receive a tax benefit as the custodial parent of Ivana. G iven the co mplete absence of any evide nce of the Slovak R epublic s tax system, Mr. G ladis s argum ent on this point cannot form the basis for ov erturning the trial court s discre tionary judgm ent not to depart from the Guidelines. JUDGMENT OF TH E CIRCU IT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT. -20- Circuit Co urt for Baltim ore City Case No. 24-U-02-000492 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 127 September Term, 2003 SLAV OMIR GLAD IS v. EVA GLADISOVA Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. Dissenting opinion by Raker, J. Filed: August 24, 2004 -21- Raker, J., dissenting, in which Harrell, J., joins: I respectfully dissent from the Court s holding that the Maryland C hild Support Guidelines are applicable in determining the appropriate child support obligation of the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent and the child live outside the United States. In my view, the guidelines are irrelevant under these circums tances; therefore, the court should determ ine the a pprop riate child suppo rt witho ut refer ence to the guid elines. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City applied the guide lines to determine M r. Gladis s child support obligation to Ms. Gladisova, who lives in the Slova k Repu blic with the parties daughter, Ivana. Upon examining the underlying principles and the purpose of the guidelines, I conclude that the Legislature did not intend for the guidelines to be applied when th e custodial p arent resides outside of th e United States. I agree with the argumen ts of Mr. Gladis that the guidelines do not apply outside of the United States, and that even if the y do apply, it is unjust an d inappro priate to app ly them in the instant case because of the great disparity in the cost of living between the United States and the Slovak Repu blic. I. The Child Su pport Gu idelines we re enacted in 1989 to comply with federal law and regulations. See Voishan v. Palma, 327 Md. 318, 322, 609 A.2d 319, 321 (1992). The federal law required that the guidelines be enacted and that they be based on specific descriptive and num eric criteria and result in a computation of the sup port ob ligation . Id. at 322, 609 A.2d at 321. When origina lly enacted , the guid elines w ere adv isory, see 1989 Maryland Laws ch. 2 § 12-202(c), at 12, but became m andatory in 1990. 1990 Maryland Laws ch. 58 § 12-202(a)(1), at 400 (codified as amended at Maryland Code (1984, 1999 Repl. Vol., 2003 Cum. Supp.) §§ 12-201 - 12-204 of the Family La w Article). A court is required to utilize the child support guidelines in setting child su pport obliga tions; there is a rebuttable presumption that the support award based upon the application of the guidelines is correc t. FL § 1 2-202 . Drum mond v . State, 250 Md. 502, 511-12, 714 A.22 163, 168 (1998). This presumption can be rebutted by evidence that applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. The guidelines are based on the principle that a child should receive the same proportion of parental income, an d thereby enjo y the standard o f living, he o r she wou ld have experienced had the child s parents remained together. Voisha n, 327 Md. at 322, 609 A.2d at 321. In developing the guidelines, the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee used the D evelopm ent of Gu idelines For Child Suppo rt Orders: Advisory Panel Recommendations and Final Report promulgated by the United States Department of He alth and Hum an Serv ices O ffice o f Child Supp ort Enf orcem ent. Id. Accord ing to this report, the purpose and need for the guid elines was (1) to remedy a shortfall in the level of awards that do not reflect the actual cost of raising children, (2) to improve the consiste ncy, and therefore the equity, of child support awards, and (3) to improve the 2 efficiency of court processes for adjudicating child support. Id. at 322, 609 A.2d at 321. Additionally, the Legislature intended to limit the necessity of the court to make those findings of fact required in existing case law . . . except to the exte nt th ey may be applicable under subsections (a)(2)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of § 12-202. Gates v. Gates, 83 Md. App. 661, 666 , 577 A.2d 382 , 385 (1990). The General Assembly developed a schedule of basic child support obligations which is included in the gu idelines . See § 12-204(e) of the Family La w Article. T he basic child support obligation is determined in accordance with the schedule of basic child support obligations set forth in §12-204. The schedule establishes child support obligations only for those parents having a combined monthly adjusted actual income of $10,000 or less. If the parents combined adjusted actual income exceeds that level, the court may used discretion in s etting the am ount of ch ild support. The General Assembly developed the schedule b ased on th e Income Shares M odel. Voisha n, 327 Md. at 322, 609 A.2d at 321. The Inco me Shar es Mod el establishe s child support obligations based on estimates of the percentage of income that parents in an intact household typically spend on their children. Id. at 322-323, 609 A.2d at 321. The econom ic assumptions underlying this model are based on recent studies estimating expenditures on children as a propo rtion of hou sehold consumption. Id. at 334, 609 A.2d at 327 ( McA uliffe, J ., concu rring). 3 The General Assembly contemplated that in certain situations use of the guidelines would be inappropriate. Section 12 -202(a)(2)(i) establishes a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child suppo rt which w ould result fr om the ap plication of th e guideline s is the correct amount. Section 12-202(a)(2)(ii) provides that the presumption may be rebutted by evidence showing that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or ina ppropriate in a particular case. The guidelines set out a n on-exhaustive list of factors that the c ourt can consider in determining whether the use of the guidelines is unjust or inappropriate. See § 12-2 02(a)(2 )(iii)(1)(2 ). If the court fin ds that it is unjust or inappropriate to apply the guidelines in a particular case, the court must state on the record its reasons for departing from the guidelines. § 12-202(a)(2)(iv). In this situation, the court must formally state: A. the amou nt of child support tha t would have been required under the guidelines; B. how the order varies from the guidelines; C. how the finding serves the best interests of the child; and D. in cases in which items of value are conveyed instead of a portion of the support presumed under the guidelines, the estimated value of the items conveyed. §§ 12-202(a)(2)(iv)(2). II. A review of the underlying purpose of the guidelines indicates to me that the General Assemb ly did not intend them to be applicable w hen the cu stodial paren t and child 4 are livin g ou tside of th e Un ited S tates . The Gen eral A ssem bly enacted the guidelines because it wante d, inter alia, to remedy situations in which the court was awarding the custodial parent far less in child suppo rt than the parent s actual costs of raising the child. Voishan, 327 Md. at 322, 609 A.2d at 321. The guidelines were enacted to ensure that the custodial parent rece ive an am ount of ch ild support c onsistent with the actual mo nthly costs of raising the child. I believe the Legislature intended the guidelines to address only those child su pport a wards made for chil dren w ho resid e within the Un ited Stat es. The underlying principles of the Income Shares M odel wh ich the sche dule is based upon reveal that the General A ssembly did n ot intend fo r the court to apply the guidelines in cases where the custodial parent lives abroad. The Income Shares Model establishes child support obligations based on estimates of the percentage of income that parents in an intact househo ld typically spend on their children. Voishan, 327 Md. at 322-323, 609 A.2d at 321. The estimates are based on recent studies estimating expenditures on children as a propo rtion of hou sehold consumption. Voishan, 327 Md. at 334, 609 A.2d at 327 ( McA uliffe, J ., concu rring). It is not plausible that the General Assemb ly, in developing the schedule, researched or took into account the percentage of income that parents living in different countries spend on their children. It is more reasonable to assume that the statistics the General Assemb ly examined contained informatio n about ho w muc h parents in the United States spend on their children as a proportion of their hou sehold co nsumptio n. It is hard to 5 believe that the assumptions underlying the Income Shares Model establishing child support obligations on the percentag e of incom e that paren ts in an intact h ousehold typically spend on their children and the studies estimating expenditures on children as a proportion of household consumption considered data outside the United States. Even though there is disparity in the cost of living within jurisdictions in the United States, and the guidelines d o apply where th e non-cu stodial paren t resides outsid e Maryland but within the United S tates, it is unrealistic to attempt to equalize standards of living throughout the entire world and, in my view, the Legislature did not attempt to do so. Applying the guidelin es to the instant case results in Ms. Gladisova receiving significantly more in ch ild support payments than Ivana s actual monthly costs. Ivana lives with her mother in the Slovak Republic,1 where the average cost of living is much lower than in Maryland o r in the Un ited States. Th e Master found th at the cost of raising children in the Slovak Republic is very disparate from the cost of raising children in the United States. Although Ivan a s monthly expenses are d isputed, there is no disagreement that they are below $280.2 Accord ing to the sch edule in the guidelines, M r. Gladis is require d to pay M s. Glad isova $ 497 pe r month in child s uppor t. 1 The Master found that according to a Slovak Republic government resource, the Slovak Republic the average gross expenses per house hold in 2001 were the equivalent of $168.80 per year. The definition of household was not provided. 2 Throughou t the proceedings below , there have been seve ral different estimates of Ivana s monthly costs. The Master found her monthly costs to equal $275.88, Judge Hargadon found it to b e $251.75 , the State belie ves that it is $243.45 and M r. Gladis believes that it is $2 33.00. 6 III. Mr. Gladis contends that, eve n if the guidelines do app ly when the child resides outside the United States, the Circuit C ourt abuse d its discretion in not deviating from them based on the extreme economic disparity between the United States and the Slovak Republic. Child support awards made pursuant to the guidelines will be disturbed o nly if there is clear a buse o f discre tion. Voishan, 327 Md. at 331, 609 A.2d at 32 6. Mr. G ladis contends that his $497 m onthly obligation, as derived from the guidelines, is unjust and inappropriate beca use the m onth ly cost of raising Ivana in the Slovak Republic is the equivalent of only $233. Ms. Gladisova maintains that the guideline s do not allow for deviatio n merely because the custodial parent lives in a country with a different standard of living. Moreover, Ms. Gladisova maintains that the Circuit Court s application of the guidelines does not create an unjust or inappropriate child support obligation because the amount neither excessively burdens Mr. Gladis, nor inappropriately enriches the child. Ms. Gladisova maintains that the guidelines do not permit deviation b ecause the guidelines are based on the principle that a child is entitled to a standard of living that corresponds to the econom ic position of the parents. She argu es that based on this princ iple, Mr. G ladis should pay the amount stipulated by the guidelines even thou gh it is greater than Ivana s actual costs because h e has a high er standard of living in the United States than Ivana has in th e Slova k Rep ublic. 7 Section 12-202(a )(2)(ii) permits th e court to deviate from the guidelines if it finds that they would dictate an unjust or inappropriate award. Althoug h § 12-20 2(a)(2)(iii) sets forth some factors which the court may consider in determining whether the application of the guid elines wo uld be unju st or inappro priate in a par ticul ar ca se, t he use of ma y indicates that the Legislature did not intend this list to be exhaustive. There is nothing in the statutory language itself that supports Ms. Gladisova s contention that the co urt is forbidden from con sidering an international d isparity in child-rearing costs as a fa ctor in determining the appropriateness of a Guideline award. Ms. Gladisova argues that this case is analogous to the circumstances in Smith v. Freeman, 149 Md. App. 1, 814 A.2d 65 (2002). In Smith, the custodial mother sought an increase in the father s child support obligation not because the child s needs had increased, but because the father s salary as a professional football player had increased by two million dollars. Id. at 21, 814 A.2d at 77. The court granted the mother s modification request on the principle that the child is entitled to a standard of living tha t correspon ds to the parents economic position, and that had the parents remained together, the child w ould have e njoyed a better lif estyle. Id. at 23, 81 4 A.2d at 78. The instant case is distinguishable from Smith. In Smith, had the parents remained together, the child would have enjoyed a much higher standard of living because of her father s high sa lary increa se. Id. at 32-33, 814 A.2d at 83. In the case sub judice, had Mr. Gladis and Ms. Gladisova remained together, Ivana would not have had a higher standard 8 of living than she does currently. Mr. Gladis earns $42,000 per year and lives a modest and comforta ble life with his new wife and seven-month old daughter. Had Mr. Gladis and M s. Gladisova remained together, in either the United States or the Slovak Republic, they would have lived a lifestyle commensurate with the standards of the country in which they resided and not one considered luxurious by the local standard. Ivana currently lives a life that is more comfortable than that of most people in the Slovak Republic.3 If Mr. G ladis is required to pay the amount stipulated by the guidelines, Ivana will have the financial ability to live a life of luxury in the Slovak Republic as compared to the o rdinary standard of living in that co untry. Theref ore, following the guidelines and giving Ms. Gladisova significantly more than her actual costs of raising Ivana is contrary to the p rinciple that the child is entitled to the standard of living that she would have enjoyed had the parents remain ed toge ther. Even if we ignore the difference between the material expectations held by residen ts of Maryland and the Slovak Republic, the Circuit Court appears to have ignored the effect of purchasing power differentials. In doing so, it conflated cost of living with standard of living. The same bundle of goods and services which would constitute a middle class 3 The Master s fin dings in the proceedings below show ed that Ivan a has health insurance through her mother s employer, whereas most people in the Slovak Republic pay for medical services as they are rendered. Ms. Gladisova also has a vehicle, whereas the majority of the population in the Slovak Republic travels by public transportation. Furthermore, Ivana regularly attends dance and music lessons and has skis, a bicycle and an organ. 9 standard of living in Maryland could be purchase d at significa ntly lower cost in the Slovak Republic. Exp ortin g M r. Gladis's U.S. dollars to the Slovak Republic and exchanging them for crowns greatly increases their purchasing powe r. Because she happens to be shopping in the Slovak Republic, Ivana can purchase more skis, bicycles, lessons, and insurance policies with her father's dollars than she could at Maryland prices. It is unjust to provide her (and her mother) this windfall at her father's expense, merely because Mr. Gladis happe ns to live in a cou ntry with a higher cost of living. The application of the guidelines is unjust and unfair. In People ex rel. A.K., 72 P.3d 402, 40 4 (Colo . App. 2 003), the non-custodial paren t argued tha t the court sho uld deviate from the Colorado child support guidelines because the children lived in Russia, where their economic circumstances were very different from those on which the guidelines are based. People ex rel. A.K., 72 P.3d at 404. The court found that the trial court erred in not considering whether the differin g living exp enses in C olorado an d Russia would render app lying the guide lines inequita ble, unjust, or inappropriate and remanded the case to the trial court for this consideration. Id. at 405. In Booth v. B ooth, 541 N.E.2d 1028 (Ohio 1989), the co urt reviewed an aw ard of child support and addressed whether the trial court could deviate from applying the child support guidelines based on the parents widely differing costs of living in New York and Ohio. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deviating from the guidelines. See Bo oth, 541 N.E.2d at 1030. Th e court furth er stated: 10 If we w ere to as sume, arguendo, that the trial court had failed to consider the respective costs of living of the parties , it may have indeed been un reasonable for the co urt to ignore such econom ic realities and, thus, the child support order might have a moun ted to an abuse o f discre tion. Id. at 1030 (emph asis in or iginal). The instant case is s imilar to the situa tion in A.K. and Booth because of the disparity in the cost of living be tween the United S tates and the Slovak R epublic. B ased on th is disparity, it is unjust a nd inap propria te for th e court to apply the guidelin es strictly. IV. The court should determine the appropriate amount of child support in this case without reference to the guide lines. In determ ining the ap propriate am ount of ch ild support, the court should co nsider the n eeds of the particular ch ild, the child s sta tion in life, and the financial circumstances of the n on-cus todial pa rent. See Wa gshal v. W agshal, 249 Md. 143, 147-48, 238 A.2d 903, 906 (1968). The cou rt should determine M r. Gladis s child support ob ligation by balan cing the be st interests and the needs o f Ivana w ith Mr. Gladis s financ ial ability to m eet them . See Unkle v. Unkle, 305 Md. 587, 597, 505 A.2d 849, 854 (198 6); Rothschild v. Strauss, 257 M d. 396, 398, 263 A .2d 511, 512 (197 0); Wagshal v. Wagshal, 249 Md. 143, 147-48, 238 A.2d 903, 906 (1968). In applying the balancing test, the court should consider the needs of the child along with factors such as the financial circumstances of the parties, their station in life, their age and physical 11 condition, and expenses in educating the children. Unkle, 305 Md. at 597, 505 A.2d at 854; see also Kramer v. Kramer, 26 Md. App. 620, 636, 339 A.2d 328, 339 (1975); Bowis v. Bowis, 259 M d. 41, 43, 26 7 A.2d 8 4, 85 (197 0); Chalkley v. Chalkley, 240 Md. 743, 744, 215 A .2d 807 , 808 (1 966). I emph asize tha t while th e discu ssion, supra, makes reference to the inequity of requiring Mr. Gla dis to fund his d aughter s c omparativ ely privileged life style in the Slovak Republic, I do not dissent because o f the particula r consequ ences in this case. Rather, my opinion is founded square ly on my belief that the Legislature could not have acted with the purpose of equalizing living stan dards wh en it adopte d the guide lines. If Ivana lived in Mon aco or S witzerla nd, I would f ind it equally app ropriate for the Circuit Court to order a support award greater than that reflected under the guidelines to accommodate the higher actual costs of child-rearing in those countries relative to Maryland. The court shou ld not apply the guidelines in a situation where the custodial parent lives outside of the United States. Perhaps the Legislature will revisit the guidelines and make clear that they are inapplicable when the non-custodial parent lives outside of the United States. Judge Harrell has authorized me to state that he joins in this dissenting opinion. 12

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.