## Facts

- Richard J. Leary III (father) and Barbara C. Leary (mother) divorced and contested legal and physical custody of their two minor sons.
- After the mother left the family home with the children, each parent sought custody and an absolute divorce on competing grounds.
- The circuit court appointed an attorney to represent the children’s interests but did not issue a written order defining the attorney’s role or duties.
- The children’s attorney investigated, considered the children’s preferences, and recommended joint custody, despite the children appearing to prefer living with their mother.
- The circuit court awarded the mother sole legal custody and sole physical custody, and granted the father “reasonable visitation” without detailed terms.
- The circuit court did not decide or enter judgment on either party’s absolute divorce claim.
- The father appealed, challenging (among other points) the lack of instructions to children’s counsel, the admission of the attorney’s report/testimony, the custody award, the lack of an in camera interview of the children, the exclusion of a proposed expert, the undefined visitation terms, and the failure to grant an absolute divorce.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error or violated due process by failing to define the duties of the court-appointed attorney for the children and by permitting that attorney to testify and make recommendations.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody rather than joint custody, including in light of the mother’s testimony seeking joint legal custody and the children’s attorney’s recommendation.
3. Whether the trial court erred by declining to interview the children in camera and by refusing to qualify the father’s proposed expert witness.
4. Whether awarding “reasonable visitation” without specific terms was reversible error.
5. Whether the trial court erred by failing to resolve and enter judgment on the parties’ competing claims for an absolute divorce.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the custody award, related evidentiary/procedural rulings concerning children’s counsel, the refusal to conduct an in camera interview, the refusal to qualify the proposed expert, and the “reasonable visitation” order.
- The appellate court held that the absence of formal instructions defining children’s counsel’s role did not require reversal because the father showed no prejudice.
- The appellate court remanded because the trial court erred by declining to decide the parties’ absolute divorce claims and failing to enter judgment on divorce.

## Legal Principles

- In custody matters, trial courts have broad discretion; factual findings are reviewed for clear error and ultimate custody/visitation determinations for abuse of discretion.
- A court-appointed attorney for children may serve functions along a continuum between advocate and guardian-type roles; when acting as a guardian ad litem, the attorney’s duty is to recommend what serves the child’s best interests and the attorney’s primary responsibility is to the court.
- Due process does not require a trial court in every case to issue formal, explicit instructions defining the precise role of children’s counsel; reversal requires a showing of prejudice.
- An in camera interview of children in a custody dispute is discretionary, not mandatory.
- Qualification of an expert witness is committed to the trial court’s discretion.
- When properly presented, divorce claims must be adjudicated; a court errs by failing to decide and enter judgment on competing requests for an absolute divorce.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s custody and visitation rulings and found no reversible error in how the children’s attorney functioned or in the court’s discretionary procedural choices, but remanded because the trial court was required to resolve and enter judgment on the parties’ absolute divorce claims.


Leary v. Leary, 627 A.2d 30 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993)