## Facts

- Judith Ann Taylor (mother) and Neil Randall Taylor, III (father) married in 1977 and had two children (born 1979 and 1980).
- The parties separated in September 1982; the mother moved to Delaware, and the children remained in the marital home with the father in Maryland.
- The father filed for absolute divorce and sought temporary and permanent custody; the mother answered and sought custody pendente lite and permanently.
- Counsel filed a written visitation schedule signed by counsel; the circuit court entered a pendente lite order granting “joint custody,” providing that the children would reside with the father and incorporating the schedule.
- After changing attorneys, the mother sought to strike the pendente lite joint-custody order, alleging it was entered without her knowledge or authorization through her former attorney.
- After a five-day trial, the circuit court granted the father an absolute divorce and continued the existing arrangement, describing it as “a sort of joint custody,” despite evidence of substantial parental hostility and difficulty communicating.
- The mother’s motion for reconsideration was denied; the intermediate appellate court affirmed; the state high court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a Maryland circuit court, exercising general equity jurisdiction over child custody, has authority to order joint custody (legal and/or physical).
2. If so, whether continuing a joint-custody arrangement on this record was an abuse of discretion, given the parents’ conflict and communication problems and the need for a clear custody structure.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that Maryland circuit courts, acting as courts of equity, have authority to award joint custody.
- The court vacated the judgment affirming the custody order and remanded for reconsideration consistent with articulated standards.
- The court declined to affirm or reverse the joint-custody order outright, citing the need for clearer definition of the custody arrangement and reassessment under best-interests factors.

## Legal Principles

- A circuit court’s general equity power over child custody is broad and includes authority to order joint custody when consistent with the child’s best interests.
- “Joint custody” may involve distinct components: joint legal custody (shared decision-making) and joint physical custody (substantial residential time with each parent); orders should specify which component(s) are awarded and the responsibilities attached.
- The child’s best interests control all custody determinations; joint custody is not presumed appropriate.
- The practicality of joint custody depends heavily on parental capacity to communicate and make shared decisions; significant hostility and inability to communicate can weigh strongly against joint custody.
- Relevant considerations include parental cooperation, degree of conflict and its effect on the children, the children’s needs, geographic proximity, feasibility of schedules, and other circumstances bearing on best interests.
- Custody orders should be clear and workable, including explicit allocation of decision-making authority and mechanisms for resolving disagreements when joint legal custody is ordered.

## Conclusion

Maryland’s highest court recognized that equity courts may award joint custody, but required a remand where the trial court’s “sort of joint custody” arrangement lacked clarity and needed reevaluation under best-interests factors, particularly the parents’ demonstrated hostility and poor communication.


Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290, 508 A.2d 964 (Md. 1986)