## Facts

- Janet and Sergey Katsenelenbogen married in 1986 and had three children; they lived together in Potomac, Maryland.
- The wife worked part-time as a nurse and employed a live-in nanny; the husband was an engineer.
- In December 1999, the wife asked the husband to leave the home; he refused.
- On January 1, 2000, the husband told the nanny she was fired and must leave so he could use her room; the wife objected and told him he could not force the nanny out.
- During a confrontation in the driveway while the husband was on the phone, the wife demanded the cordless phone; she alleged the husband shoved her and shoved their nine-year-old son when the child stepped between them; the husband denied any physical contact.
- The wife testified she had been threatened by the husband’s behavior, feared escalation, and experienced anxiety and depression.
- On January 3, 2000, the wife petitioned for protection on behalf of herself and the child, alleging shoving, threats of violence, and mental injury to a child.
- After a hearing, the circuit court found statutory “abuse” and entered a final protective order granting the wife temporary use and possession of the home, custody-related relief, and other protective measures.
- The protective order later expired by its own terms on January 3, 2001.

## Issues

1. Whether an appellate court should decide the merits of a protective-order dispute that became moot due to the order’s expiration, under a public-interest exception.
2. What standards govern findings of “abuse” and the issuance and scope of protective-order remedies under Maryland’s domestic violence statute, including the role of fear of imminent serious bodily harm.
3. Whether the intermediate appellate court erred by vacating the protective order and limiting trial-court discretion through its approach to “reasonableness,” tailoring of relief, and review of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reached the merits despite mootness under the public-interest exception, given the need to clarify protective-order law.
- The court disapproved restrictive aspects of the intermediate appellate court’s analysis and reaffirmed a protective construction of Maryland’s domestic violence statute.
- The court emphasized substantial appellate deference to trial judges’ credibility determinations and factual findings in protective-order proceedings.
- The court confirmed that trial courts may order significant statutory remedies, including exclusive use and possession of the home and custody-related provisions, when supported by the evidence and the statutory definition of abuse.

## Legal Principles

- A moot case may be decided when it presents unresolved issues of important public concern likely to recur and requiring guidance for future conduct.
- Maryland’s domestic violence statute is remedial and should be construed liberally to provide prompt and effective protection to victims.
- Appellate review of protective orders is deferential as to factfinding and credibility; appellate courts may not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment absent clear error or legal error.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to select among statutory remedies (including exclusion from the home and custody/visitation measures) to protect petitioners and children.
- Any objective component to fear of imminent serious bodily harm must be applied in a manner consistent with the trial court’s primary role in assessing context and credibility, not as a tool for heightened appellate second-guessing.

## Conclusion

Although the challenged protective order had expired, Maryland’s highest court reviewed the case to clarify domestic violence protective-order standards, reaffirming liberal statutory construction, deference to trial-court factfinding, and broad authority to grant meaningful protective remedies when abuse is found.


Katsenelenbogen v. Katsenelenbogen, 775 A.2d 1249 (Md. 2001)