## Facts

- Michael Shannon and Nermeen Khalifa divorced and had two minor sons.
- The divorce decree awarded custody of the older son to Shannon and custody of the younger son to Khalifa; each parent had court-ordered visitation with the child in the other’s custody.
- Khalifa, with assistance from her mother Afaf Nassar Khalifa, removed both children from the United States to Egypt without Shannon’s knowledge or consent and did not return.
- At the time of removal, Shannon was the custodial parent of the older child and the visitation parent for the younger child.
- Shannon sued Khalifa and her mother for intentional interference with his custody and visitation rights.
- A jury in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County awarded Shannon $3,017,500 in compensatory and punitive damages against both defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland recognizes a tort claim for intentional interference with custody and visitation rights, and whether such a claim requires pleading or proof of loss of the child’s services.
2. Whether a parent holding only visitation rights may sue for interference with visitation, and what degree of interference is required.
3. Whether the compensatory and punitive damage awards were excessive, including whether punitive damages were grossly excessive and unsupported by evidence related to defendants’ ability to pay.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment.
- The court held Maryland already recognized the tort of intentional interference with parent-child relations, encompassing interference with custody and visitation rights.
- The court rejected a requirement that the plaintiff plead or prove loss of the child’s services.
- The court held a visitation parent may bring the action if the interference with visitation is “major and substantial.”
- The court upheld the compensatory and punitive damages and found no error in the trial court’s rulings on damages.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland recognizes the tort of intentional interference with parent-child relations, including interference with custody and with significant court-ordered visitation.
- Loss of the child’s services is not an element of the modern tort; the protected interest is the parent-child relationship and the legal rights attached to it.
- A parent with visitation rights has a legally protected interest sufficient to sue when the interference is “major and substantial,” not minor or episodic.
- International removal and continued retention of children in violation of custody/visitation arrangements can support substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a substantial jury verdict for a father whose former spouse and her mother removed the children to Egypt, holding that Maryland recognizes intentional interference with custody and major visitation without requiring proof of loss of services, and that severe interference with visitation is actionable and may warrant compensatory and punitive damages.


Khalifa v. Shannon, 945 A.2d 1244 (Md. 2008)