CUSTODY

Wendt v. Wendt, M.A.C. Rule 23.0 case, 22-P-1158 (2024)

Following a four-day divorce trial in March 2022, the father, William George Wendt, contested the Judge's custody determination, asserting that it was a clear abuse of discretion.

The mother filed a Complaint for Divorce on February 6, 2020, on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The parties had two children, born in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Through the proceedings, both parties sought custody of the children and ownership of the marital home. The Judge granted the mother primary physical custody and joint legal custody of the Children. The Judge ordered that the mother was the primary caregiver and found that the father did not always act in a manner that supported his children.

The father claims that the Judge failed to consider multiple relevant factors in determining custody. The trial Judge noted that he based his decision on the parents' ability to provide stability, their decision-making skills, and the impact of their lifestyles on the children. The trial Court found that the father was unable to provide the same level of stability as the mother. For example, the Judge cited that the father brought the children to school late on numerous occasions and was combative with the children's caregivers.

The father argues that most of the behavior and incidents cited did not reflect his ability to be a good parent. However, the trial Judge credited the mother's testimony that the father, during an argument, threatened violence against the mother's new partner in the presence of the children. In addition, the father sent a child to school with only blueberries for lunch, forgot to pick the children up from school one day, and was occasionally inattentive to his children's needs at school.

The father alleges that he was improperly punished when the Judge granted primary physical custody to the mother. However, the Appeals Court found the Father’s contention without merit. The Judge made this decision by assessing the witnesses' credibility and carefully considering both the mother's and father's ability as parents, all through the lens of the children's best interest.

The father further argued that the Judge improperly interfered with his parental rights by restricting the children's time with the maternal grandparents. Father alleged that was is a violation of his constitutional rights. However, the trial Judge did not require any visitation with the grandparents.

Finally, the father disagreed with the Order granting the mother custody of the children each week from Saturday at 4 pm until Thursday. The parties agreed to raise their children Catholic. Prior to the court Order, the father brought the children to church on Saturdays at 4 p.m. or Sunday mornings. However, the Judge's decision did not consider the party's mutual agreement that the father should continue taking the children to Mass. As a result, the Appeals Court vacated the divorce judgment pertaining to the weekly parenting schedule and remanded the case to the Judge to make findings reflecting the appropriate consideration for the children's religious development. The divorce judgment, in all other respects, was affirmed.