clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e
  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search search for:
clear space
white space
Session Laws, 2004
Volume 801, Page 2366   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

Ch. 502

2004 LAWS OF MARYLAND

9.5-309.

EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN § 9.5-311 OF THIS SUBTITLE, THE
PETITION AND ORDER MUST BE SERVED, BY ANY METHOD AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW
OF THIS STATE, ON THE RESPONDENT AND ANY PERSON WHO HAS PHYSICAL
CUSTODY OF THE CHILD.

9.5-310.

(A)     UNLESS THE COURT ISSUES A TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH § 9.5-204 OF THIS TITLE, ON A FINDING THAT A PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD, THE COURT SHALL
ORDER THAT THE PETITIONER MAY TAKE IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE
CHILD UNLESS THE RESPONDENT ESTABLISHES THAT:

(1)      THE CHILD CUSTODY DETERMINATION HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED
AND CONFIRMED UNDER § 9.5-305 OF THIS SUBTITLE AND THAT:

(I)      THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER
SUBTITLE 2 OF THIS TITLE;

(II)     THE CHILD CUSTODY DETERMINATION FOR WHICH
ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT HAS BEEN VACATED, STAYED, OR MODIFIED BY A COURT
OF A STATE HAVING JURISDICTION TO DO SO UNDER SUBTITLE 2 OF THIS TITLE; OR

(III)   THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE, BUT NOTICE
WAS NOT GIVEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS OF § 9.5-107 OF THIS TITLE,
IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT THAT ISSUED THE ORDER FOR WHICH
ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT; OR

(2)      THE CHILD CUSTODY DETERMINATION FOR WHICH ENFORCEMENT
IS SOUGHT WAS REGISTERED AND CONFIRMED UNDER § 9.5-305 OF THIS SUBTITLE
BUT HAS BEEN VACATED, STAYED, OR MODIFIED BY A COURT OF A STATE HAVING
JURISDICTION TO DO SO UNDER SUBTITLE 2 OF THIS TITLE.

(B)     THE COURT SHALL AWARD THE FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES
AUTHORIZED UNDER § 9.5-312 OF THIS SUBTITLE AND MAY GRANT ADDITIONAL
RELIEF, INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIALS, AND SET A FURTHER HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL
RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE.

(C)     IF A PARTY CALLED TO TESTIFY REFUSES TO ANSWER ON THE GROUND
THAT THE TESTIMONY MAY BE SELF-INCRIMINATING, THE COURT MAY DRAW AN
ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM THE REFUSAL.

(D)     A PRIVILEGE AGAINST DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN
SPOUSES AND A DEFENSE OF IMMUNITY BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF HUSBAND
AND WIFE OR PARENT AND CHILD MAY NOT BE INVOKED IN A PROCEEDING UNDER
THIS SUBTITLE.

- 2366 -

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Session Laws, 2004
Volume 801, Page 2366   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 11, 2023
Maryland State Archives