## Facts

- Carol Marie McCarty (mother) and Douglas Neal McCarty (father) married on January 31, 1998.
- Their daughter, Jessica, was born on August 8, 1999.
- The parties separated on November 17, 2000.
- Father filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County seeking joint legal and joint physical custody of Jessica.
- Mother filed a counter-complaint seeking a limited divorce and sole legal and sole physical custody.
- The trial court awarded mother sole physical custody, but postponed a decision on legal custody for six months.
- During the six-month period, the court ordered the parties to work with a parent coordinator, Dr. Linda Gordon, to assess whether the parents could communicate effectively enough to make major decisions jointly.
- The parents had an “abysmal” communication history, but after the period of work with Dr. Gordon, she expressed optimism that they could resolve disputes and act together in Jessica’s best interests.
- Based on that improvement and the court’s evaluation of the evidence, the trial court awarded joint legal custody.
- Mother appealed, challenging only the award of joint legal custody and arguing that she did not agree to joint custody and that the parties could not communicate effectively.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding joint legal custody despite the mother’s opposition and the parents’ history of serious communication problems.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the custody order.
- The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint legal custody while leaving sole physical custody with the mother.
- The court concluded that the record supported the finding that, after the court-ordered coordination period, the parents could communicate well enough to share major decision-making in the child’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Custody determinations are governed by the child’s best interests, and trial courts have broad discretion in choosing an arrangement supported by the evidence.
- Appellate review of custody decisions is highly deferential; reversal is warranted only for legal error, clearly erroneous factual findings, or an abuse of discretion.
- Legal custody concerns authority to make major, long-term decisions affecting the child (such as education, medical care, and religious training); joint legal custody gives both parents an equal voice in those decisions, with neither parent having superior decision-making rights.
- Physical custody concerns where the child lives and who makes day-to-day decisions while the child is in that parent’s care; joint physical custody involves shared residential time and typically demands more day-to-day coordination.
- A parent’s lack of agreement to joint legal custody does not bar a court from ordering it if the evidence shows it can work and serves the child’s welfare.
- In evaluating joint legal custody, a key consideration is whether the parents are able and willing to communicate and reach shared decisions; the trial court may consider recent improvements and the effect of structured assistance (such as a parent coordinator) when assessing future workability.
- The trial judge’s ability to observe the parties over time and assess credibility carries significant weight in determining whether joint legal custody is feasible.

## Conclusion

McCarty v. McCarty affirms a trial court’s decision to award joint legal custody even after a long period of poor parental communication, where the court temporarily deferred the legal-custody ruling, required the parents to work with a parent coordinator, and reasonably found—based on the coordinator’s assessment and the court’s own evaluation—that the parents could communicate sufficiently to make major decisions jointly in the child’s best interests.


McCarty v. McCarty, 807 A.2d 1211 (2002)