Kemp v. Kem

42 Md.App. 90, reversed on other grounds 287 Md. 165 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Nicholas (H) and Nancy (W) had two children. They were divorced in 1974. W was given custody and H had reasonable visitation rights. Visitation rights with the younger child, a boy named Buzz were hotly disputed but eventually worked out between the parties. That resolution lasted until 1977. W alleged that H and his present wife were having domestic problems and the visitation by Buzz into that environment was not in the child's best interests. W decided on her own to not allow the boy to visit his father. H filed a motion for contempt and discontinued sending support payments for the boy. W filed a cross-petition for failure to pay child support, and that H had refused to pay for the psychiatric care of Buzz. The court suspended H's visitation with Buzz, suspended support payments as the conduct of H was not the sole reason for the problems between H and Buzz, and ordered H to pay for the psychiatrist's fee. The facts entered into evidence show a striking difference in what was really occurring. H presented evidence that there were no real problems of domestic bliss with his current wife and that W had severely interfered with his visitation schedule. W testified that Buzz was under severe stress with physical manifestations and that Buzz was unhappy to see his father and that this was the reason for his pathetic grades and school performance. W also testified that when visitation stopped Buzz's health would improve, as well as his school work. In chambers discussions with Buzz showed an intense hatred for his father. The child's psychiatrist testified that Buzz would be better off not visiting his father presently; the reasons given seem very clear that W was poisoning the father-son relationship. Both parties appealed.