Judge Decision Protocols Conforming to the Uniform Child Custody.

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a

uniform state law that governs decision making about jurisdiction in interstate custody

cases (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2018). The UCCJEA

provides an overview on whether a specific state judicial court has jurisdiction rights to

modify or change other interstate court rulings. The UCCJEA serves as a guide to assist

(a) judicial court judges, (b) the professionals that are involved in court rulings, and (c)

parents with the responsibility and measures to protect the child (National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1997). In this study, I explored whether judges

and professional experts involved in custody cases use the key factors from the UCCJEA

to make custody determinations and recommendations. The UCCJEA serves to provide a

better understanding of the responsibilities that are required to implement and give orders

from and to the other inter-states. (UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges,

2018).

Although, the UCCJEA exists, there is a problem regarding the lack of uniformity

amongst state family courts in applying and conforming to the UCCJEA. The UCCJEA

specifically aims to protect the best interest of the child when making custody

determinations. The purpose of the UCCJEA is to resolve the emergency, protect the

parties and child, and determine the duration of the emergency order. (UCCJEA: Guide

for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018). However, it is unclear whether judicial court

judges in Maryland conform to the UCCJA. According to the Uniform Law Commission

(ULC) (2013) the commission argued that courts aim to provide a much better concept

for relief for the parents and children who suffer from interstate child-custody disputes.

In 1968, the ULC promulgated the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act

(UCCJA). By 1981, every state had adopted this Uniform Act. In 1997, the ULC have

promulgated a new Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

(UCCJEA). It does two very important things. It reconciles UCCJA principles with the

Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA). It adds interstate civil enforcement for

child custody orders. The UCCJEA replaces the UCCJA. (ULC, 2013).

Many states have replaced the older UCCJA with the UCCJEA. According to

ULC (2013) the UCCJEA is currently undergoing amendments to the law, and ULC does

not intend to present them publicly until the amendments are final. There are existing

copies of the UCCJEA along with a chart with citations that have state versions of the

UCCJEA (UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018). Elrod (2021) argued

that the UCCJEA has been adopted in 49 states, except for Massachusetts, which still

uses the UCCJA.

The UCCJEA is a state law that deals more on jurisdiction distinctions among

states within the United States of America. ULC (2013) mentioned that the UCCJEA has

amendments that have not yet been federally implemented and is still in draft status as of

2013. ULC (2013) identifies that the UCCJEA is an interstate problem in which

finalizing the law at the federal level would be better suited for complying with state

uniformity. (UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018). As per the ULC

(2013), the UCCJEA modifies and replaces the previous UCCJA to succumb to the

obligations of the United States under the Hague Convention or Hague Conference on

Private Law (HCCH) (1996) on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement,

and cooperation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of

children. The HCCH governs the jurisdiction to take measures to protect a child and his

property. It also addresses questions of applicable law concerning parental responsibility

for a child where there is no specific intervention by authorities (such as by a court

order).

The UCL (2013) mentions that more than 30 states have enacted their own

versions of the UCCJEA. The UCL (2013) organization described that the UCCJEA uses

the word “which”, for the court that should decide a custody case (jurisdiction), and not

“how” the court should decide the case. The UCL (2013) further explained that although

the UCCJEA exists, courts vary from state to state, and judges consider a child’s

preference on a case-by-case basis. In my research I explored if judges conformed to the

UCCJEA in a family district circuit county court, in the state of Maryland (Md. Fam.

Law Code Ann. § 9.5-101 et seq). My research provided insight what protocols are in

place and how it varies from state to state.

The UCCJEA, in general, is a guide that can be used by the state court judges

which provide a list of factors to determine the outcome in custody rulings (UCCJEA:

Guide for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018). Of these factors’ judges can make

decisions to protect the child, and to determine jurisdiction for which home state is best

suited for a child (Hoff, 2001). I explored how outside factors were measured by judges

in decision making expertise, which include the wishes of the child's parent; the

relationship of the child with each parent; and the ability of each parent to provide

adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a safe environment. I found a gap in

the literature as it relates to how judges interpret the law regarding the outside factors.

There were many possible outside factors that were considered as possible social change

factors contributing to the problem. Of the many outside factors that I found, one specific

gap that was identified was judges do not use a child’s preference or the weight of the

child’s voice in custody arrangements unless a parent allows for a child to be present or

consent. The only way the court judge used the child’s voice to assist them in their

decision making was when the parent selected a request for custody, or a court appointed

expert to evaluate their child on the court fillable forms. The parent’s permission is

always the court’s requirement; therefore, judges were presented with what was written

as testimony on the court forms. My research findings can be used to inform the public of

the court’s requirement, and show that judges do not interpret, adopt, conform, or adhere

to the UCCJEA, due to the Maryland law references on the court forms.

In my research, I found that judges demonstrate and strive to make their rulings

based on the preservation of the child’s best interest in the court. However, Domitrovich

(2019) explained that mixed opinions surfaced over the years either praising best interest

as the highest reliable standard, as no better concept existed, or ridiculing this standard as

being far too subjective. Judges would subjectively apply their own personal experiences

with children, thereby creating inconsistent results not in the best interest of children.

Donohue (2020) argued that the human tendency toward the bias of this kind is

particularly worrisome in the context of courts, and particularly family courts, where the

decisions of a few (judges) are governing the solution set for the diverse masses--and

where the decisions of a single fact finder govern the nature and quality of the interaction

between children and their caregivers. In my research, I explored if judges rule outside of

the current list of the factors associated with the UCCJEA. I sought to determine if the

application of these factors were applied when the judges were making their

decision/rulings. My research can inform the public’s curiosity and awareness on the

uniformity of law of the UCCJEA, the current judge’s decision-making protocols, and

how judges are conforming or taking into consideration any outside factors in family

court custody determinations. My research in many ways contribute to the body of

knowledge needed to address the problem by exploring the current measures taking into

consideration when making judicial custody decisions.

Furthermore, I explored the public policy approach of the policy learning theory

(PLT). The PLT assists with lessons learned from past experiences. I conducted an in-

depth case analysis review on how judges currently conform to laws described further in

the chapters. I focused more on whether states, specifically, the state of Maryland and its

district circuit county court conformed to the UCCJEA.

The research creates positive social change to inform the public on whether the

act introduced or implemented provided uniformity and conformity in judge’s decision-

making protocols. The research serves as an extension of knowledge which opens doors

for reform or societal change, and whether judges base their application of the law with

the current protocols in place. The research promotes more opportunities to discover or

conduct similar studies among any other states district or district circuit county courts.

This chapter will discuss the background on UCCJEA, the problem, the purpose

of the research, an introduction of the research question, the theoretical framework, and

its significance to public policy and positive social change. Further discussed in the

chapters is the UCCJEA implementation timeline of how the act was developed over

time. In addition, this chapter will go into further detail on court dynamics on whether

family district circuit county court judges adhere and conform to the UCCJEA. I will

inform how the judges currently interpret the law from similar cases and what was taken

into consideration when a policy or an act was introduced. In addition, identifying the

current key factors that are provided by the UCCJEA and any outside societal factors that

were used by judges when making custody determinations, while keeping and protecting

the best interest of the child. Lastly, the results and findings, the case study analysis, the

interpretation, and limitations that were experienced, along with recommendations for

future research and the implications of the study on the potential impact for positive

social change and policy making.

Background

In 1968, the Uniform Law Commissioners promulgated the Uniform Child

Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). By 1981, every state had adopted this Uniform Act.

In 1997, the ULC have promulgated a new UCCJEA. It does two very important things.

It reconciles UCCJA principles with the PKPA. It adds interstate civil enforcement for

child custody orders. The UCCJEA replaces the UCCJA. (ULC, 2013). Many states have

replaced the older UCCJA with the UCCJEA. The UCCJEA is currently undergoing

amendments to the law, and UCL does not intend to present them publicly until the

amendments are final (ULC, 2013). According to the ULC (2013), the UCCJEA has

amendments that have not yet been federally implemented and is in draft status as of

2013. The UCCJEA is a uniform state law drafted by the National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (now the ULC) and is enacted by all states

(except for Massachusetts), the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands

(UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018).

The UCCJEA modified the original act to succumb to the obligations of the

United States under the HCCH on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement,

and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of

children (HCCH, 1996). At present, the UCL organization mentioned that more than 30

states have enacted their own versions of the UCCJEA. UCL (2013) mentions that the

UCCJEA specifies which court should decide a custody case (jurisdiction), and not how

the court should decide the case. In addition, the UCL does not intend to present the

amendments until they are final, which makes it more important to increase the public’s

awareness on identifying what are current judges decision-making protocols and if the

uniformity of law or UCCJEA is being taken into consideration. In the UCCJEA guide

for Court Personnel and Judges (2018), there are protocols to determine whether a court

has jurisdiction over a custody case:

1. Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction and Judicial Communication explains that

the judicial court can implement the act and have the protocols in place to exercise the

court’s authority on granting temporary emergency jurisdiction even when the court is

not the home state (or the state with preferred jurisdiction; UCCJEA, §204).

2. Modifying an order explains that the court must consider keeping judicial

communication by working with the responsible administrative office of the courts to

modify existing forms to facilitate requests for temporary emergency jurisdiction

(UCCJEA, §202).

3. Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction states that the UCCJEA sets forth four

jurisdictional bases to help a court determine whether it has “initial child-custody

jurisdiction” over a custody matter (in addition to temporary emergency jurisdiction;

UCCJEA, §201):

• Home state, which is defined as, the state in which a child lived with a

parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months

immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding

(UCCJEA, §102(7)).

• Significant connection, which is defined as, a court may exercise

significant connection jurisdiction only if there is no home state and two

conditions are met: (a) the child and the child’s parents, or the child and at

least one parent or a person acting as a parent, must have “a significant

connection with the state other than mere physical presence”; and (b)

substantial evidence must be available in the state concerning the child’s

“care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (UCCJEA,

§201(a)(2)).

• More appropriate forum explains that the court having jurisdiction under

one of the four jurisdictional bases described may decline to exercise

jurisdiction if the court finds that it is an inconvenient forum and a court in

another state is a more appropriate forum (UCCJEA, §207).

• No other state or vacuum explains the last resort. Vacuum jurisdiction is

available when no state satisfies any of the three jurisdictional bases

described. When a family has traveled from state to state with only brief

stays in any one place, it may be necessary for a court to exercise this form

of jurisdiction (UCCJEA, §201).

4. Inconvenient Forum, By Reason of Conduct (“Unclean Hands”) explains that a

court must decline to exercise jurisdiction if a party has engaged in unjustifiable

misconduct that resulted in the court’s jurisdiction over the case (UCCJEA, §208).

5. Judicial Communication, Interstate Cooperation, Protection Orders,

Information to Submit to the Court, Enforcement, International Order, Tribal Court

Orders, explains that the court must be able to recognize that international cases may

involve the HCCH on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as well as the

UCCJEA. Further explained, the court must be able to recognize the reasons for declining

to exercise jurisdiction on inconvenient forum grounds, such as, if the parties are in

different states because of violence, it could be unsafe for the victim to return to the home

state to litigate a custody case. In addition, due to separation violence, a victim may be at

increased risk for physical violence or homicide; forcing a return to a state where the

abuser resides could be deadly. The court must be able to recognize that courts should not

decline to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA’s “unjustifiable conduct” provision

when the parent seeking jurisdiction fled across jurisdictional lines to escape abuse

(UCCJEA, §201).

Within my research review of all the protocols, I found that there are sublevel

protocols that require the court to use the UCCJEA’s provisions and other means to

improve the safety of victims of domestic violence in the court. The UCCJEA informed

the court administrative staff to develop a protocol for judicial communication, both for

responding to requests from out of state and for initiating requests to courts in other

states. This included considering the parties and counsel to be present during the

communication as well as, allowing the parties with an opportunity to present facts and

legal arguments before making a jurisdictional decision.

All court staff must maintain judicial communication by keeping a record of the

communication and access to the record (UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and

Judges, 2018). The court must be able to train its staff to manage interstate judicial

communication in UCCJEA cases. Overall, the court must consider assigning a UCCJEA

judge for communication requests regarding cases in which the original judge is no

longer available (UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018).

In my research, I used the public policy approach of the policy learning theory to

explore the issue of the current protocols in place and what judges are currently doing

with the application of law. There were many possible outside and social change factors

contributing to the problem. The rational or general concern for this study was the

protocols that are in place, how it varies from state to state, and if judges are using their

own interpretation of the UCCJEA.

Of the many factors, one rational I had for conducting this research was that there

was a gap in the literature as it relates to the weight of the child’s voice in custody

arrangements. I sought to discover a better understanding of how the weight of a child’s

voice is measured by judges in decision making expertise as well as the wishes of the

child's parent; the relationship of the child with each parent; and the ability of each parent

to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a safe environment.

When conducting the case analysis, my findings indicated that judges do not

consider using a child’s perspective as a supporting role or supporting factor to make a

custody decision, unless it was provided by the parents to use an evaluator. I determined

from all the supporting court forms and cases that the outside factors in addition to the

UCCJEA current factors are necessary to protect the safety of the child and provided

primarily the jurisdiction on which home state is best suited for a child in custody

determinations. Contributing to support the literature, my research assists with social

change when considering to reform. The recommendations I suggested may change

society and courts on whether an act introduced and implemented provides uniformity

and conformity in judge’s decision-making protocols.

The research contributes to the body of knowledge needed to address the problem

by exploring the current measures taking into consideration when judges make judicial

custody decisions. The research open doors as a social change that may impact future

researchers to discover more opportunities to conduct similar studies in other states courts

or district circuit county courts. The next section addresses the problem statement, in

which this research focused specifically on whether its court judges were conforming to

the UCCJEA in the state of Maryland within a family district circuit county court.

Problem Statement

The UCCJEA is a uniform state law regarding jurisdiction in child custody cases,

and the act describes the parental responsibility and measures for the protection of

children (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2018). Although the

UCCJEA exists, courts vary from state to state, and judges consider a child’s preference

on a case-by-case basis (UCL, 2013). In this research study, I addressed whether judges

conform to the UCCJEA in the state of Maryland. I addressed the lack of uniformity

amongst state family courts in the aspect of considering the best interest of the child

when making custody determinations. My research findings can inform the public that

judges do not conform to the UCCJEA in the state of Maryland. I explored if judges rule

outside of the list of the factors associated with the UCCJEA. Based on my findings, I

determined that the application of these factors was not applied or implemented when the

judges are making their decision/rulings. Domitrovich (2019) argued that mixed opinions

surfaced over the years either praising best interest as the highest reliable standard, as no

better concept existed, or ridiculing this standard as being far too subjective. Judges

would subjectively apply their own personal experiences with children, thereby creating

inconsistent results not in the best interest of children. According to Donohue (2020), the

human tendency toward bias of this kind is particularly worrisome in the context of

courts, and particularly family courts, where the decisions of a few judges are governing

the solution set for the diverse masses and where the decisions of a single fact finder

govern the nature and quality of the interaction between children and their caregivers.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore if judges rule outside of the

list of the factors associated with the UCCJEA in the state of Maryland. The purpose of

this study was to assist with identifying key factors and protocols currently applied in the

courts, and how factors were conducted or measured by judges in decision making

expertise and/or evaluations. Throughout my research, I explored family custody cases

which assisted in identifying if there are current measures along with a current list of

criteria taking into consideration when making judicial custody decisions. Therefore,

ultimately determining if judges were conforming to the UCCJEA while the judges were

presented in court with many societal key factors contributing to custody arrangements.

My research helped me to determine if the application of these factors in fact were

applied when the judges are making their decision/rulings. In my research, a gap exists on

how judges conform to the UCCJEA in the state of Maryland, and it was initially never

made aware to the public. Although the UCCJEA exists, courts vary from state to state,

and judges consider a child’s preference on a case-by-case basis (ULC, 2013). Data

elements used to conduct this study were based on the UCCJEA lists of factors used by

court judges as a uniformity law in custody and enforcement. In the UCCJEA guide for

Court Personnel and Judges (2018), the guide is meant for judges to consider the respect

of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children. The factors

currently listed in the UCCJEA assist as a guide to determine how judges can conform to

the UCCJEA in Maryland. I explored if judges conform to the UCCJEA and if they use

any outside factors to help shape their decision making during custody rulings. An in-

depth review of the factors was conducted to contribute to custody arrangements to

address the research question.

Research Question

What factors are associated with judge decision-making protocols and the

application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)

when making child custody decisions in the state of Maryland?

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework used in this study was the policy learning theory.

Policy learning theory is grounded on the foundation that proposes three suitable

questions for the research (a) what are the subjects of learning in an approach? (b) what

are the objects of learning? and (c) what is learning supposed to contribute to? (Grin &

Loeber et al., 2007). Policy making decisions are based on human judgment and what

information is gathered to inform that problems exist. Policy gaps are then identified

providing the subject a basis to provided best recommended solution. The

recommendation provides future implementation of a new and improved policy into

society or as reform in law. The design and implementation of policies are constantly

adapted in society which are created and learned from past experiences over time. In

these challenges and many others, learning from past mistakes represents a hope that

better policies will develop in the future (Moyson & Scholten et al., 2017). Theories of

policy learning draw from lessons learned to identify the gaps in law or in policy making

by focusing on lessons learned and improvements. Recommendations are introduced to

conduct better practices and protocols that can be utilized in society to promote change.

Therefore, shared experiences shape processes of future policy formation. However,

biases still can appear in policy designs.

Nature of the Study

The logical connections between the framework presented and the nature of my

research include the policy learning theory framework. It provided the foundation on

policy implementation, changes, and how the application of current laws impacts society

in human driven decision making. The nature of this research study was a qualitative

thematic analysis using secondary data and comparing results from 10 family court

custody cases. In return, the findings and reoccurring themes either provided consistency

in some cases or case-by-case changes in judge decision making protocols. I found that

the review of UCCJEA was necessary to explore how judges take into consideration laws

and how they implement laws within family district circuit county courts. Moyson and

Scholten (2018) argued that Heclo (1974) was the first to introduce the concept of policy

learning and the idea of knowledge as an explanatory factor of policy change, in

opposition to conflict-and power-based theories (Grin & Loeber et al., 2007). Policy

learning is a concept that refers to this cognitive and social dynamic. It is the learning

processes in which information and experiences are used to acquire new knowledge on

policy objectives to substantiate and legitimize them or to change or form beliefs. They

identify several cognitive and social processes to strengthen the connection between

policy learning and policy change (Moyson & Scholten et al., 2017). The review of

UCCJEA identified applicable recommendations to maintain and keep up with current

times and policy implementations. The protocols currently in place are solely reliant on a

judge’s perspective. It is recommended to reform and improve court protocols to achieve

better outcomes in rulings. The recommendations are further discussed in the next

chapters.

Definitions

A list of definitions is provided below for the reader to understand unfamiliar

terms used throughout this study,

Case Law or Case: This term means, a law that is based on judicial decisions

rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law concerns unique

disputes resolved by courts using the concrete facts of a case. By contrast, statutes and

regulations are written abstractly. Case law, also used interchangeably with common law,

refers to the collection of precedents and authority set by previous judicial decisions on a

particular issue or topic. In that sense, case law differs from one jurisdiction to another

(Legal Information Institute, 2021).

Best Interest: This term is a mix of definitions that is interpreted by current law

decision making professionals, in research it has been defined as the standard criteria or

list of factors that assist to determine what is best for the child or children. Further

defined to provide stability for the child, a suitable environment in the home that will be

better than the home of the custodial parent, and that there has been a substantial change

in circumstances overall that will not harm the well-being of the child (Md. Code, Family

Law § 9-107).

Child: This term means, an individual under the age of 18 years (Md. Fam. Law

Code Ann. § 9.5-101 et seq. (c)).

Child custody determination: This term means that it is (a) a judgment, decree, or

other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with

respect to a child; (b) "Child custody determination" includes a permanent, temporary,

initial, and modification order; and (c) Does not include an order relating to child support

or other monetary obligation of an individual (Md. Fam. Law Code Ann. § 9.5-101 et

seq. (d) (1-3)).

Child custody proceeding: This term means that (a) a proceeding in which legal

custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child is an issue; (b) it includes a

proceeding for divorce, separation, neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity,

termination of parental rights, and protection from domestic violence, in which the issue

may appear; (c) it does not include a proceeding involving juvenile delinquency,

contractual emancipation, or enforcement under Subtitle 3 of the law (Md. Fam. Law

Code Ann. § 9.5-101 et seq. (e) (1-3)).

Court: An entity authorized under the law of a state to establish, enforce, or

modify a child custody determination (Md. Fam. Law Code Ann. § 9.5-101 et seq. (g)).

Enforcement or Enforcement Power: In general, enforcement refers to the power

of a government entity to enforce the law through investigations, arrests, and the ability

to sue suspects on behalf of the public. In constitutional law, it is the name for a provision

that expressly authorizes Congress to enforce a constitutional amendment through

appropriate legislation (Legal Information Institute, 2021).

Factor: A cause or reason that contributes to some result (Legal Information

Institute, 2021).

Home state: The state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a

parent for at least 6 consecutive months, including any temporary absence, immediately

before the commencement of a child custody proceeding, and in the case of a child less

than 6 months of age, the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons

mentioned, including any temporary absence (Md. Fam. Law Code Ann. § 9.5-101 et seq.

(h) (1-2)).

Judge: An appointed or elected official who decides legal disputes in court (Legal

Information Institute, 2021).

Judicial discretion: The power of officials to act according to the dictates of their

own judgment and conscience. Discretion is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary,

fanciful, or unreasonable. If the plaintiff or the defendant thinks that the trial court judge

has abused the discretion, the party can appeal the case. The appellate judge’s job is

essentially to review whether the trial court judge has acted properly and correctly

applied the law. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by

the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion (Legal

Information Institute, 2021).

Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to adjudicate cases and

issue orders. The term also indicates a territory within which a court or government

agency may properly exercise its power (Legal Information Institute, 2021).

Less Restrictive Alternative: Most guardianship statutes require findings both of

incapacity and need for the guardianship to prevent harm. Least restrictive alternative is

understood to apply to the need requirement. Further defined as, when an adult is unable

to make personal decisions (e.g., medical decisions, meals, etc.) or handle their own

property (e.g., bank accounts, bills, etc.), a court can appoint a guardian (Glen, 2019).

Pro se litigants: In all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and

conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts,

respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. The term is further

defined as parties representing themselves in court without the assistance of an attorney

(28 U.S.C. § 1654).

State: A state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the

United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States (Md. Fam. Law Code Ann. § 9.5-101 et seq. (p)).

Ruling: A ruling is a court’s decision on a matter presented in a lawsuit. A ruling

could refer to a judgment, which can be final or nonfinal (Legal Information Institute,

2021).

Assumptions

For the purposes of this study, there was an assumption based on the review of

literature on whether a judge follows and implements the law and the criteria set forth in

the protocols to protect the child, and if the judges used other outside key factors to make

their decisions during custody rulings. Hoff (2001) argued that of the factors’ judges

make decisions to protect the child, and to determine jurisdiction for which home state is

best suited for a child.

For this research study, the theoretical framework of policy learning was based on

past experiences or real-life experiences which required the use of public case studies to

document and conduct reviews. Prior to reviewing the case files, an assumption was to

have an overall knowledge of the UCCJEA and to review the law in its entirety to

determine any findings. This type of research required official court completed, final-

closed, filed documents, and a computer to research each case in the database. The family

district county court website database assisted me with finding similar trends on how

each case is handled by a judge. The research required communication with the Maryland

state county clerk office by making a formal request via e-mail to obtain family case

documents for research purposes. The county court’s database contained the full details

of the case proceedings. I was able to record and document the findings from reading the

UCCJEA and the case records of the custody trials and rulings in-depth. I listed all the

known key factors that judges were adhering to and then I was able to align the UCCJEA

and determine if it was used throughout each case.

Scope and Delimitations

The scope of this study and data elements used to conduct this research was based

on the UCCJEA as a uniformity law in custody and enforcement, which describes the

respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children. Data

elements assisted to determine how judges conform to the UCCJEA in Maryland and

how they determine custody rulings based on case-by-case basis. A review of the factors

was conducted of those that contribute to custody arrangements. I identified if the

application of the current law factors or other outside factors were applied when the

judges are making their decision/rulings. The analysis assisted me with identifying the

key factors and protocols currently applied in the courts, and how it is currently

conducted or measured by judges in decision making expertise and/or evaluations.

Throughout the exploration of cases, I sought to identify if there are current measures

along with a current list of criteria taking into consideration when making judicial

custody decisions, ultimately determining if judges are conforming to the UCCJEA when

there are many societal and key factors contributing to custody arrangements. My

research demonstrated that judges do not conform to the UCCJEA in the state of

Maryland, and it was not made aware to the public.

Limitations

Several limitations, challenges, and or barriers existed during the research. The

limitation that was presented in this research was conducted in one family district circuit

county court state of Maryland, which is not nationally representative; therefore, data and

any inferences or conclusions are relevant to those judges represented in the cases

analyzed. The use of a qualitative approach does not afford the ability to determine causal

relationships; however, the findings are suggestive. Data was reviewed in its entirety

without any introduction of researcher bias. The technique of in-depth case review and

analysis took a great deal of time to complete the necessary steps to ensure that data

provided enough information to determine the findings and reoccurring themes.

Another limitation was identifying and ensuring that the county clerk provided

good guidance and quality case files. I had to know how the county clerk provided the

case files and data and whether it is obtained in different formats. I, as the researcher, had

to request a specific way to receive the cases from the county court database or through

the public court database. I had to keep my options open on how I was going to collect

data and receive data. I had the option to request the file or case data to be received by

way of electronic-file (e-file) format. Some of the courts do provide e-files and video

recordings, however I was concerned to receive by e-file, such as video recordings. The

limitation would have been difficult to identify who the main professional roles or key

speakers are while reviewing the cases. However, this was not the situation. I decided to

physically go to the courthouse to obtain the full files/case details to ensure that I

received no missing pages or documents. I was successful in requesting and obtaining 10

custody cases, and each case was current and recently within the year of request

determined as final and closed. This provided me to keep up with the current times and to

be able to explore if the judges were using the UCCJEA in a more recent year of

completion.

Another limitation was that I had to be mindful of public cases and that cases may

be limited to criminal justice judge professionals and a possible bias could surface in

court cases due to their professional position or status. For example, the UCCJEA may

only be retained by the judge at close hand, and it could be difficult to properly identify if

judges know the UCCJEA in their expertise when making their final decisions.

Another limitation was due to COVID- a global pandemic. Data collection was

collected from final dispositions post-COVID shutdowns, and the demographics of those

in the case proceeding trials are a representation of court administrators, experts, and

judges available. These limitations had no bearing on the accuracy of data obtained from

the cases. This is confirmed by the identification of reoccurring themes early in the

process of data collection.

Significance

In my research, based on a definition of a judge, when assuming their professional

status, are required to have judicial discretion when to adhere to laws and must include

and apply current laws in their decision-making process. Whether judges conduct and

apply the law is unknown to the public since only those involved in the trial hearings are

present specifically to the case to receive the outcome. However, my research assisted in

identifying if such protocols were applied and the best interest of the child was taken into

consideration. In my research, it was important to find out how a law is enacted and the

impact of implementing these law shapes the future. Using the PLT, policies should focus

on helping to create a societal change as time moves forward, which will develop positive

outcomes for a continued structured development. In my research, I recommend as a

societal safety net that judges could direct more attention to resources, training, and the

use professional experts to extend their decision making in custody rulings. Adapting and

applying laws has many strengthens and weakness specifically on human biases and fact

base evidence presented in custody courts. Judges can be recommended to continue to

keep abreast of learning policies and how it is applied in society as social adaptation.

Furthermore, the research identified common patterns when using current protocols in

custody trial cases. The research confirmed truth to the validity of decision making and to

trust that the best interest of the child is being considered.

Summary

In this qualitative research study, using a thematical analysis approach, I explored

the lack of uniformity amongst state family courts in the aspect of considering the best

interest of the child when making custody determinations. I focused on a family district

circuit county court in the state of Maryland by exploring multiple cases to determine if

judges conform to the UCCJEA and take into consideration any outside factors that is in

the best interest of the child.

Chapter 1 introduced the research topic, its background, and the rationale for

selecting Maryland. Narrowing down the research study to a smaller family district

circuit county court gave me the ability to see what is in currently being done to protect

the best interest of a child in custody determinations in my own community, with regards

to the UCCJEA being used or implemented.

Chapter 2 provides a restatement of the research problem and the purpose.

Through a synopsis of the literature, the reader will become more familiar with the

research problem and the rationale for the theoretical framework choice. A review of the

literature will provide a basis for understanding.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

In this research study I addressed whether judges conform to the UCCJEA in the

state of Maryland. Currently, a problem exists regarding the lack of uniformity among

state-to-state family courts when judges are left to make decisions on child custody

rulings (ULC, 2013). The UCCJEA is a uniform state law regarding jurisdiction in child

custody cases (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2018). It identifies

an interstate problem in which finalizing the law at the federal level would be better

suited for complying with state uniformity (National Conference of Commissioners on

Uniform State Laws, 1997). Therefore, I explored how judges conform to the UCCJEA in

the state of Maryland. The UCCJEA used by the state court judges contain a list of

factors that determine the outcome in custody rulings. Of these factors judges make

decisions to protect the child, and to determine jurisdiction for which home state is best

suited for a child (Hoff, 2001). In my research, although judges base their decisions using

their own standard list of factors, the weight of the child’s preference or voice is not

considered in custody determinations. I explored other possible outside factors that are

not mentioned or listed in the current standard list of factors in the UCCJEA. I explored

what other outside factors are used by state court judges to make their custodial

decisions. The research demonstrated that court judges across the United States have only

applied their own interpretation of the law and have not fully adopted the UCCJEA.

According to the ULC (2013), the research provides much better relief for parents and

children who suffer from interstate child-custody disputes. Elrod (2021) argued that the

UCCJEA has been adopted in 49 states, except for Massachusetts, which still uses the

UCCJA.

In my research, I found that judges strived to make their rulings based on the

preservation of the child’s best interest in the court. Even though the UCCJEA exists,

courts vary from state to state, and judges consider a child’s preference on a case-by-case

basis (ULC, 2013). When asked to decide whether such a provision violated fundamental

principles of human rights, the committee, along with the advisors and observers, could

not agree. Therefore, the application of that provision was left to the courts to determine

on a case-by-case basis (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws,

1998). Domitrovich (2019) argued that mixed opinions surfaced over the years either

praising best interest as the highest reliable standard, as no better concept existed, or

ridiculing this standard as being far too subjective. Judges would subjectively apply their

own personal experiences with children, thereby creating inconsistent results not in the

best interest of children. Donohue (2020) argued that the human tendency toward bias of

this kind is particularly worrisome in the context of courts, and particularly family courts,

where the decisions of a few (judges) are governing the solution set for the diverse

masses--and where the decisions of a single fact finder govern the nature and quality of

the interaction between children and their caregivers.

In the UCCJEA, the following eight factors list how courts decide jurisdiction on

which home state is best suited for a child in custody determinations and how it

protects the safety of the child. The eight factors in the UCCJEA are (a) whether

domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state

could best protect the parties and the child; (b) the length of time the child has resided

outside the current state; (c) the distance between the court in the current state and the

court in the state that would assume jurisdiction; (d) the relative financial circumstances

of the parties; (e) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume

jurisdiction; (f) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending

litigation, including testimony of the child; (g) the ability of the court of each state to

decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and

(h) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending

litigation. (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws & Spector,

1998). Although the list of factors includes the testimony of the child, the outside factor

of the weight of the child’s voice was not determined in custody rulings. In my research,

the findings led toward judge case-by-case decision-making arrangements for custody

family court final outcomes based on the case rulings. In addition, the wishes of the

child's parent and the relationship of the child with each parent are not taken into

consideration unless supporting documents provide proof of a healthy and stable

environment based on the court rulings. This implicates further research needed on how

current factors are measured by judges in decision making expertise. In custody cases the

judges are presumed to consider the ability of each parent to provide adequate food,

clothing, shelter, medical care, and a safe environment. The assumptions are outside

factors that revealed a gap in the literature as it relates to how judges interpret the law and

how they use their own court supporting documents or forms to adhere to the state laws. I

explored if the UCCJEA was used by judges in court and if it was followed through to

make their decision-making determinations, and whether the cases in court rulings have a

different outcome, specifically in a family district circuit county court state of Maryland.

My research study adds to the literature as a focus on whether states, specifically, the

state of Maryland and one of the district circuit county courts conforms to the UCCJEA.

It creates an opportunity for further research for all the other remaining states district

circuit county courts in the United States of America to be explored.

In this chapter, the theoretical framework for researching this topic will be

introduced which is the Political learning theory also known as the policy learning theory,

wherein Heclo (1974) argued that people learn in ways of understanding their problem

and what to do about them. Learning occurs at the individual, organizational and societal

levels. Helco (1974) argued that policymaking is both embedded in the past and subject

to continual challenge and adaptation. Heclo (1974) argued that human beings are

endowed with reason and imagination, and are irreducibly developmental, as well as

politics. Therefore, policies and institutions that are created by humans are developed by

past experiences. Those past experiences shape what we learn in politics. (Heclo,1974).

My research provided and developed a better understanding of other implementation

studies that used policy learning for lessons learned. I conducted a thematic analysis,

which identified similar reoccurring themes in other cases. Specifically, the analysis

assisted to identify if court dynamics are present on whether family district circuit county

court judges adhere and conform to laws that are implemented. My research provided

insight and may assist policy makers on learning more about how judges interpret the

law, and how judges implement an act and apply their protocols in the court. Informing

the public society on a unique perspective allows to see how policies are implemented, as

well as how future policies are developed when applying to current times.

Literature Search Strategy

To complete a comprehensive review of the literature, academic databases (The

Walden University Library. Google Scholar, ProQuest, LexisNexis databases) were used

to retrieve relevant peer-reviewed articles that were published between 2016 and 2021.

To obtain these articles, as well as others, I searched the following keywords: Best

Interest of the Child AND Judge, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement

Act, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act AND Custody, Judge Decision Making AND

Divorce, Family Court AND OR District Court AND Maryland, Full Faith Credit,

Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, and Violence Against Women Act. Other terms

related to the review of the literature included Policy Learning Theory, Policy Learning,

Policy Transfer, and Social Learning. The list of websites from Google Scholar include

Maryland State Court Records, District Family Court Cases, Maryland Thurgood

Marshall State Law Library, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Uniform Law Commission,

Divorce Writer, Child Preference Custody Affects, National Center for State Courts,

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Guide for Court Personnel and

Judges, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Child

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and

Enforcement Act: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges.

While conducting the search, the identified search terms were used in various

combinations and articles were sorted by relevance and year of publication. After several

searches and even a cursory search of the UCCJEA, there was a determination that

further information was not available.

The review of the literature also includes publications that are outside of the 5-

year scope. Seminal works regarding the theoretical frameworks, as well as data for

evidence of the development of UCCJEA public policies was required to further solidify

the foundation for why the research question is important.

Theoretical Foundation

In research that involves the examination of policy problems, the public policy

approach of the policy learning theory can be used to investigate the issue of the

protocols in place and what judges were doing with the application of law. According to

Grin and Loeber (2007), the policy learning theory describes a foundation that proposes

three suitable questions for the research: (a) What are the subjects of learning in an

approach? (b) What are the objects of learning? and (c) What is learning supposed to

contribute to? Policy making decisions are based on human judgment and what

information is gathered to inform that problems exist.

Policy making or public policy in research is defined as what the government

intends to do to accomplish objectives and goals (Anyebe, 2017). Researchers argued that

this may make it seem that public policy can be more of decision rather than an

implementation to society to conform to a governance (Anyebe, 2017). That is to say that

mere declaration of intentions, wishes, principles, or expression of desires cannot be

called public policy. Public policy should mean actual resource allocation presented by

projects and programs designed to respond to perceived public problems and challenges

requiring government action for their solution (Anyebe, 2017). The statement focuses on

what is being done instead of what is only proposed or intended, and it differentiates a

policy from mere decision, which is essentially a choice among competing alternatives.

Public policy, therefore, is policy developed and implemented by a government agency

and officials, though nonstate actors and factors may influence its process (Anyebe,

2017.). In government or institutions there are patterns programmed by human behavior

and policy making can be left with room for interpretations, biases, and human error.

Policy making is a trial and error made by humans over time that is learning from

experience or historical occurrences. Anyebe (2017) argued that institutions include

legislatures, executives, and judiciary; and public policy is authoritatively formulated and

executed by them. An institution is, in part, a set of regularized patterns of human

behavior that persist over time and perform some significant social function. It is their

differing patterns of behavior that usually distinguish courts from legislatures, from

administrative agencies, and so on. These regularized patterns of behavior, which are

usually called rules or structures, can affect decision-making and the content of public

policy. Rules and structural arrangements are usually not neutral in their effects; rather,

they tend to favor some interest in society over others and some policy results over others

(Anyebe, 2017). Therefore, policy gaps can occur in public policy and policy making

which is subjected to biases that provide the best recommended solutions. The

recommendation then provides future implementation of a new and improved policy into

society or as reform in law. The design and implementation of policies are constantly

adapted in society which are created and learned from past experiences over time. In

these challenges and many others, learning from past mistakes represents a hope that

better policies will develop in the future. (Moyson & Scholten et al., 2017).

Introduction to Policy Learning Theory

The theoretical framework that was the basis for this study was the policy

learning theory. Theories of policy learning are drawn from lessons learned to identify

the gaps in law or in policy making by focusing on lessons learned and improvements.

Recommendations are introduced to conduct better practices and protocols that can be

used in society to promote positive change. Therefore, shared experiences shape

processes of future policy formation, however biases still can appear in policy designs.

According to the statute and case law, state trial jurisdictions developed a guide for

judges to help with deciding what is in the best interest of a child (UCCJEA: Guide for

Court Personnel and Judges, 2018). Determining a list of factors help structure judges

and their decision making in family law rulings. The judges that follow these key

principle factors apply the specific findings in the child's life to make determinations for

what is best (UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018).

Domitrovich (2019) argued that in family courts the definition of the child's best

interest describes long-term concerns and short-term concerns which include a

child's physical and emotional well-being. Other factors in the research include the

health, financial, educational, moral, cultural, and religious interests. Factors are also

assessed by family dynamics; family interactions; environmental variables; the child's

preferences; the child's physical, emotional, and psychological needs; and other relevant

factors (Domitrovich, 2019). To conduct an evaluation of each child’s situation these

factors assist judges in decision making for the outcome of the custody rulings.

Domitrovich (2019) specified on how the court judge conforms and applies the law and

the factors to make decisions in the best interest of the child. In addition, further research

provided how policy learning, and protocols are applied in family courts and how the

lessons learned from the application the law, act, or policy can better enhance or improve

for the future (Domitrovich, 2019)

Seawright and Gerring (2008) argued that lessons learning in policy learning and

researching similar themes within case studies such as thematic analysis are key elements

in research design. The research design is predominantly most different in nature because

it is calibrated to look for similarities, in terms of types

of learning and learning outcomes, across four very different inquiries (Seawright &

Gerring, 2008). This aspect of the design enhances the article's findings in terms of

different types of learning because they emerge from shared themes generated across

difference. A second reason for the case selection was that after these inquiries reported

and their reform processes concluded, similar crises arrived to test those reforms. Each

case allows one to identify the type of policy learning but also see what effect the learned

lessons had after implantation. This dimension of the cases allows one to address the

more fundamental question of whether inquiry learning can help avoid failure (Seawright

& Gerring, 2008).

Supported Decision Making

Judge decision making impact the rulings based on their case-by-case basis and

highlights how difficult it is to control biases. Donohue (2020) argued that research

reflects biases found in people, or natural human society, who infer or make decisions

based on their own prior beliefs, opinions, and attitudes. Therefore, hinders the rational

thinking and impacts the evaluation of evidence or arguments presented in court

determinations. Donohue (2020) argued that the perception of judges and fact-finding

cases are based on judges’ own notions or their own biases. Donohue (2020) argued that

perspectives can divide outcomes, and that politics is the systematic organization of

human empathy. Heclo (1974) argued that it is important that court judges rely on

information that is presented to them to make informed decisions (Heclo, 1974).

Donohue (2020) argued that research reflects what the judges observe when presented in

court and describes how the psychological principles provided by counseling

professionals inform and mitigate efforts of decisions from judges resulting in damaging

their subconscious biases. I discovered that it is important to review the specific protocols

that are in place used in the court and whether judges apply the factors in the UCCJEA

and any other factors for their rulings. Based on my research findings, I recommend court

judges to conform to a more structured base approach or court reform of a list of criteria

for litigation strategies in ruling outcomes, instead of using their own perspective Judges

must determine key factors that fall within the list of criteria of the law.

My research findings determined that decisions were supported by facts and not

by emotions. Of the many outside factors that were used in family court case documents,

judges considered what was in the best in the interest of the child in custody proceedings

using facts presented. In my research findings, I was able to discover examples of cases

which have judges use fact-based reform protocols. In addition, my research explored

cases with all the several types of judge decision-based approaches within the courts.

Exploring how judges used other factors to base their decisions in court rulings provided

a lesson learned on supported decision making for future policy implementations.

In one case study, judges were able to determine and depend on custody

investigators or other professionals in their areas of expertise, when selected by the

parties, or by referring to the court proceeding reports. My research findings showed that

over time when involving children in family hearings that the situations encountered

becomes an emotional environment, and that judges must confront reality-based approach

on making impartial decisions. Greenstein (2019) argued that research demonstrates an

increase in pro se litigants, the development of therapeutic courts, and an expanding

caseload, and where judges preside over matters that are not merely "opposing" sides.

Where there is no clear legal issues and articulated opposing views, judges must navigate

the ethics around their proper role in the proceeding. Furthermore,

matters involving children pose some special issues. Greenstein (2019) argued that the

evaluation was based on facts presented and were not driven by their own emotions or

feelings. However, Greenstein (2019) argued that judges must consider the sensitivity

and must be able to provide direction or authority in his or her own style that can be fair

and impartial. Greenstein (2019) further argued that findings led to observe how judges

must either be disciplined on using a list of factors or rely on case-by-case basis using

their own expression and biases. As well as judges have labeled parents in custody cases

as immoral and expressed anger and condescension in custody rulings. Judges were in

this situation driven by their emotions. Findings led to inconsistency of emotional

representation in their own self-determinations (Greenstein, 2019). I found that this

research is important to societal change because it allows to see all the several types of

judge personal decisions based on their approach within the courts. I specifically

narrowed in and focused more on how judges used other factors to base their decisions in

court rulings. Supported by the research in future societal change, I discovered that

judges could provide findings on using fact-based reform protocols by unifying and

conforming to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

Most common factors identified are measured by a set of criteria. For example,

the wishes of the child's parent; the relationship of the child with each parent; the ability

of each parent to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care and a safe

environment, and many others. The general concern for the protocols in place varies from

state to state, which in this research findings, I discovered that the state of Maryland did

not conform to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. My

research aligns to decision making laws on the best interest of the child to explore ways

to create possible new standing norms or protocols in custody rulings. For all the factors

that were presented in society, I found that judges could be recommended by other

professional expertise to do their best to follow key factors in their current protocol

procedures in place and apply it in court.

While conducting my review of the research, I found a similar research study that

explained the importance of conforming to an act. In this specific research, the Uniform

Guardianship, Conservatorship and Other Protective Arrangements Act was used. It

provided a way to introduce how judges are to apply a less restrictive alternative by using

other options to assist in self-determination making decisions. In this case, other options

would be the same as the use of outside factors. The Uniform Guardianship,

Conservatorship and Other Protective Arrangements Act was introduced to protect

persons with a disability. The research explored newly emerging practices

of supported decision-making as an alternative to guardianship (the what), compares it

within existing guardianship law (the why), and describes how some judges have taken

the lead in promoting supported decision-making in their jurisdictions (the how). The

research provided awareness that there was proof of a credible support system when it

comes to decision-making. Glen (2019) argued that courts should demonstrate a support

in place for the subject of the proceeding, which are persons with disability and have

guardianship. In the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship and Other Protective

Arrangements Act language it explained that judges should reform to apply a less

restrictive alternative focusing on the limit of the use of guardianship. The need to take

the act for supported decision making was made a priority in the court system and

allowed the judges to conform to enhance change or better process improvements (Glen,

2019). The type of support identified included the gathering of information and the

explanation of information in a more simplified language. The consideration of the

consequences of the decisions were weighed by pros and cons. The communication

of these decisions to third parties assisted the person with whom to implement

the decisions in the courts. The results met with a need for judges, court staff, and

lawyers to learn more about supported decision-making to effectively promote

informational change in the way supported decision-making provided. In my research, I

found that an act implemented can make a societal impact with change and how an act

introduced can provide uniformity and conformity in judge’s decision-making protocols.

Judges could formalize a process to conform based on supported decision-making in the

courts. The next section discusses custody determinations and how it is based on judges

own interpretations and application of the law.

Custody Determinations

Laws and policies are developed to be implemented based on law decision makers

and in keeping up with societal change. There are examples of research explored among

states that can provided lessons learned to another state regarding custody determinations.

Research argued that state childcare parentage laws, that is, laws designating parents for

custody, visitation, parental responsibility allocation, parental decision making and/or

support purposes, have evolved dramatically in the past half century (Parness, 2021). For

example, the State of Illinois legislators considered the need to recognize new childcare

parent over the objections of an existing legal parent or existing legal parents. This

created possible new standing norms or protocols in custody rulings. This was a new

policy implementation that led judges to be placed in an inconvenient situation when

making decision determinations.

For all the factors that are presented in society, I found in my research, a

recommendation that can be made for judges to follow key factors in their current

protocol procedures in place and applied in court. Karmely (2016) explains that most

common factors identified measured by a set of criteria. Karmely (2016) argued that

judges in family court judges would prioritize the key factors on what they thought was

best on the welfare of the child over any other arguable compelling factor, such as the

rights of either parent to have custody. The research shows the perspective of how judges

make their own inferences and determinations. Indeed, many legislators throughout the

country are considering new laws that would mandate a presumption for shared custody.

However, recent social science research, legal scholarship, and judicial decisions suggest

that shared parenting may not always be in a child's best interests (Karmely, 2016). The

research provided three recommendations that states should change or consider revising

and can be applied as recommendations for my research results. The first is changing the

language terminology, examples provided are the words visitation and custody which

assist in keeping up with current times as family dynamics and relationship changes to

reduce parenting issues. Second recommendation was a structured approach on codifying

factors that can be used to determine the best interest of a child, and therefore allow

judges to follow more strict guidelines when making decisions in custody rulings.

Third, develop a screening tool that consist of a list of criteria which includes

characteristics needed to maintain a joint custody relationship between parents. Knowing

the types of tools utilized in courts and the resources would assist in possible

identification of factors to make a successful outcome. A joint custody criteria list would

serve as assistance to parents in determining if co-parenting is achievable given the

circumstances. Parents may not necessarily understand what is needed for such

arrangements or a set list of criteria that could help in all custody determinations. The

research would assist in identifying current practices and improvements needed to

standardize protocols on key factors that align with factual based evidence. According to

the UCCJEA providing protection in the child’s best interest is the focus of uniformity

and conformity in judge’s decision making protocols. Parents may not necessarily

understand what is needed for such an arrangement, and a checklist or a better set list of

criteria could help in that discussion.

With regards to court dynamics, protocols used in courts were not made publicly

aware and judges relied on other professionals. In most cases, courts appoint mental-

health experts like psychologists, psychiatrists, or social workers (Nathan, 2015). Judges

rely on professional evaluators and often disregard or fail to include the tests conducted

and end up providing their own biases. Future research can inform the public to rely on

professionals in court rulings specifically in the state of Maryland.

Further research can be conducted similarly and applied among other states. For

example, research in another state, such as the state of Illinois used the Illinois Marriage

and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA). The IMDMA is an act that strengthens the

integrity of marriage and safeguards family relationships, promotes settlement of

disputes, mitigates potential harm to spouses and their children, and crucially secures the

maximum possible involvement of both parents regarding their children's well-being. The

language of the statute gives Illinois courts the discretion to appoint an evaluator to help

determine the outcome of custody decisions. While the statute effectively grants this

authority to the courts, there are virtually no guidelines that set forth who the evaluator

can be, what qualifications he or she must have, how the evaluators should conduct their

evaluations, and what, if any, methods should be employed in the evaluation (Nathan,

2015). Nathan (2015) argues that judges look toward expert opinions, and their decision

is influenced or skewed on determining the outcome of the custody decision. Nathan

(2015) further argued that influence is directed by the results of faulty psychological and

instrument testing results. In the end, the judge has the option to choose if they want an

evaluator assisting in deciding custody disputes, which in turn determines what is in the

child best interest. The research found that the courts must consider the best interest of a

child by utilizing many distinct factors of reviewing the circumstantial evidence to ensure

the children's welfare and best interests are protected (Nathan, 2015).

According Nathan (2015) the best interest standard for courts are recommended to

be applied during custody decisions to consider the future of the child’s well-being. The

factors that were reviewed are the attitudes or demeanor of the parent; the capacities on

how the parents handle their life situation; the foundation of the type of person each

parent is, and how the child is like. Nathan (2015) argued that using the standard goals

that courts still have, have faced many challenges applying it, however it is their priority

in considering the best interest of the child (Nathan, 2015). This research helped to look

further into the application of the UCCJEA and how judges apply the protocols on

determining the best interest of a child. Reviewing the key factors assisted to identify

what is included on the current set criteria, and if there was one that judges follow outside

of the law.

My research assisted in identifying if such protocols were applied and taken into

consideration the best interest of the child. I was able to identify common patterns when

using current protocols in custody trial cases. A future recommendation for judges is a

possibility to work on a better way to limit the consequences that are developed from

custody court rulings.

In the next section the research explains what the best interest of the child means

in custody determinations and how it provides truth to the validity of decision making by

judges to be able to trust that the best interest of the child is being considered.

The Best Interest of the Child

What is the best interest of the child? It is the standard in courts as a judge or

professional individual that provide an appropriate recommendation based on evidence

during custody decisions to consider the future of the child’s well-being. Throughout the

research the term best interest is one of the outside gap factors. The term is not

elaborately defined on what in fact is best or advocated for regarding the child in a

custody ruling. The UCCJEA was reviewed on what reforms and alignments were best

used in cases by judges to determine protocols in place.

The UCCJEA was required to be thoroughly explored in its entirety to ensure the

law was applied and taken into consideration in current courts. I identified key factors of

what was included on the set list in the act and if judges were following within or outside

of the law. In my research findings, there were outside factors in the current practices

similarly used in the court protocols and in the current court policy.

In support of the literature, my research explored that other states developed their

own custody statues or policy protocols. For example, one state required custody

evaluators, guardians, and child representative to use screening and training on how to

determine if domestic violence was present in cases. The research recommends courts

and family law professionals to be concerned with making distinctions on situations

regarding domestic violence and the strong abuse presented in custody child court cases.

Stark and Choplin (2019) argued that there is a need for training to assist the

professionals to make the best decision for the best interest of the child. The researchers

declared eleven states to require a waiver to have evaluators, guardians, and child

representative receive training on screening for domestic violence (Stark & Choplin et al.,

2019). Results met with gaps in the law in requiring for screening and training contribute

to poor custody decision-making by judges to factor the best interest of the child.

Reviewing state custody laws in the United States that assess court judges and

professionals in domestic violence child custody cases was important to know what best

practices are being made regarding the child’s best interest.

Stark and Choplin (2019) report a fifty-state review of custody related laws (laws

determining which parent makes major decisions relating to the child, who is allocated

primary parenting time, and whether protective restrictions shall be placed on the

parenting time of a parent who has engaged in domestic violence). The review found

serious gaps between what evidence based best practices suggest, and what is currently

required by law in many states. These gaps in the law included the failure of the law to

require domestic violence screening and training for judges and other family law

professionals and contributed to poor custody decision making by them that compromises

the safety and welfare of domestic violence survivors and their children (Stark & Choplin

et al., 2019). Judges must direct more attention, resources, training, and become more

experts to ensure decision making in custody rulings provide a societal safety net (Stark

& Choplin et al., 2019).

Adapting and applying laws have many strengthens and weaknesses specifically

on human biases and fact base evidence presented in custody courts. In my research, I

found that providing recommendations to the court judges may assist and continue to

provide insight on learning policies and how policy may be applied in society as social

adaptation. The factors in my research findings revealed a clear gap in the literature as it

relates to the weight of the child’s voice in custody arrangements; how it is measured by

judges in decision making expertise; wishes of the child's parent; the relationship of the

child with each parent; the ability of each parent to provide adequate food, clothing,

shelter, medical care and a safe environment, and many others.

The best interest of a child in state custody laws in the United States assess judges

and professionals in domestic violence child custody cases and what best decision-

making practices are being made regarding the child’s well-being. My research

recommends courts and family law professionals to be concerned with making

distinctions on situations regarding domestic violence and the strong abuse presented in

custody child court cases. I sought to explore if other states developed their own custody

statues or policy protocols. I found that it was important to ensure if in fact the law was

applied, and key factors are reviewed in court rulings.

The American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, established in

1978, published a Handbook on Questioning Children. Walker (1994) provided helpful

guidance in questioning child witnesses and things to look out for in answers by child

witnesses (Walker, 1994). Walker (1994) suggests 10 ways in which judges can speak

with children so that they will understand and be understood, and what to do

when judges suspect a child may not understand a question that is being asked. Although

the focus here is on judges, these same tips may apply, in varying degrees, to attorneys

asking children questions in court (Thumma & Braddock, 2019). The research provided

how to assist judges in making decisions, specifically when they are basing their

decisions in custody trials. The communication language between the parents differs from

the child. Thumma and Braddock (2019) argued that children learn more from

observation, and they communicate more on emotions. The communication gap was

found to be a judge’s failure to question the child in court appropriately, and the use of

simple language should have been used to provide clarity of what is being asked. It is

important that judges apply this objective to ensure questions are restructured at the child

level to help determine outcomes in custody rulings. The research is to ensure 10 of the

tips is applied in court (a) use of simple words, (b) use of simple syntax, (c) use positive,

active language, (d) limit questions to one main idea, (e) think literally, (f) be specific and

avoid pronouns, (g) frame questions, (h) be direct, (i) avoid suggestive questions, and (j)

ask follow-up questions. These 10 tips can assist judges to seek more validity in the truth-

seeking process, and judges that have children as their witnesses will need to incorporate

the equivalent way a subject matter expert would apply in their procedure or protocols.

Applying the set of criteria on how to speak to children will help bridge the

communication gap in court. It leaves room for questioning if there are additional

protocols used and if it is provided to the public as awareness. Judges reviewing the key

factors of the best interest of a child is important to know especially on how they address

their questions, evidence, and evidentiary supporting documents in custody court rulings.

As time continues to evolve, research provided awareness to those in current

times of how social media plays a part in decision making for custody rulings. Further

research would be needed on the application of the UCCJEA and if using social media

content platforms would create a challenge for judges on making structured decisions.

Social media evidence presents issues when the statements made by a child or

parent on his or her personal social networking account are used to prove the truth of the

statement. Any relevant and authenticated information posted by the opposing party on

social media is admissible, despite an objection, when offered against that party, as a

statement by a party opponent. But this exception does not apply to a child's social media

posts. Because children are not parties in family court, they are not a party opponent, and

their social media posts would not be admissible as a statement by a party opponent. So

how can the court properly receive this evidence? (Marquis & Rodriguez-Zaman, 2019).

The evidence presented to the judges in court from social media outlets make it more

challenging in cases that require the best interest of children. The falsification that many

media outlets allow to create offer challenges for all courts, and therefore the standards to

admit social media content vary from state to state.

The outcome of this research is mostly due to many possibilities in the evidence

providing false truths. In the courts, social media platform content is admissible for

judges to decide on a case-by-case basis. In addition, further allowable statements made

in court for either party are used to provide proof of relevancy to the matter. However,

the exception does not apply to the child’s actual social media platform, because children

are not considered a party in family court. This research is important regarding the

necessary reason to have protocols in place that would measure and consider how judges

can apply discretion for custody court cases.

The research study explored if judges conform to the UCCJEA and if they use any

outside factors to help shape their decision making during custody rulings. My research

findings add to my field and contributes to positive social change to identify if biases

appear in rulings or in policy designs when a law or act is introduced or implemented. In

addition, my research allows for more opportunity to conduct similar research in other

state or district circuit county courts in the United States of America.

In conclusion, my research findings assist with promoting societal change in

processes used by state courts for future policy formation. In policy learning or lessons

learned outcomes, it is important to note that in many custody cases judges must take into

consideration their top priority, which is to ensure and preserve the child’s best interest,

however further exploration of my research will assist to provide the public with a better

understanding why in the initial UCCJA, the best interest language in the jurisdictional

sections of the UCCJA was not intended to be an invitation to address the merits of the

custody dispute in the jurisdictional determination or to otherwise provide that best

interest considerations should override jurisdictional determinations or provide an

additional jurisdictional basis. The research explained that the UCCJEA eliminates the

term best interest to clearly distinguish between the jurisdictional standards and the

substantive standards relating to custody and visitation of children (UCCJEA: Guide for

Court Personnel and Judges, 2018). Throughout the research the term best interest is an

outside factor that assist in determining if the weight in the child’s voice in custody court

cases, and what is in fact best or advocated for the child in a judge decision making

protocols. The term best interest has been updated by the factors presented in the

UCCJEA. It is one of the many focus areas that was explored to address the gap in this

research study, and how it is now currently being used and why was it eliminated from

the UCCJEA.

The need for further research is recommended to assist judges to shape their

protocols to apply a better interpretation of policy designs or law, and to provide better

practices in court to obtain better outcomes. In the next section, the research will inform

how the UCCJEA was implemented, and provide a timeline on how each act was

transitioned into the next act.

Literature Review Related to UCCJEA

UCCJEA Implementation Timeline

1942-1958- Full Faith and Credit 28 U.S.C. § 1738B

1968- Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) Implemented.

1980- Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA)

1984- 50 states adopt UCCJA.

1994- Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

1997- The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & (and) Enforcement Act

(UCCJEA) adopted in July by the National Conference of Commissioners

on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).

1998- UCCJEA Approved in February by the American Bar Association

House of Delegates. The UCCJA is replaced by the

UCCJEA. States can adopt.

Historical Overview of the UCCJEA

The Full Faith Credit Clause is in the United States Constitution in the current

implementing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B which states “Full Faith and Credit shall be

given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other

State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such

Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” (Constitution of

the United States, Article IV, Sec. 1: Full Faith and Credit Clause). In plain language, the

Full Faith Credit Clause requires every State to respect the other State’s laws and

institutions. This is the foundation for the implementation of the need for the Uniform

Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.

The UCCJA was developed and implemented in 1968 to end custody jurisdiction

battles between states; however, it was not applied uniformly across state courts. States

implemented their own versions of the Act and have not applied it consistently, leaving

much room for different interpretations. The UCCJA contained many issues, such as

what state is declared as home state during custody trials; whether another state from

which the other parent lives may have more personal jurisdiction over the state they

currently reside in; and if a court can override or modify another court ruling. The term

defined by 28 U.S. Code § 1738B- Full faith and credit for child support orders child’s

home state as the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for

at least 6 consecutive months immediately preceding the time of filing of a petition or

comparable pleading for support and, if a child is less than 6 months old, the State in

which the child lived from birth with any of them. A period of temporary absence of any

of them is counted as part of the 6-month period. In addition, it is unclear whether the act

applies to recognition of Indian tribal court custody orders. Therefore, to assist with more

clarification on the matters the UCCJEA was drafted (Stoner & Orona, 2004).

The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) was implemented in 1980 due

to many jurisdiction issues in custody cases that were present and continued after the

UCCJA was created. The research states that the PKPA introduced interstate child

custody matters in clarifying three key factors: (1) to promote cooperation among the

states in the enforcement of custody and visitation orders; (2) to discourage continuing

interstate controversies and conflicts, and (3) to deter interstate abductions of children

(Freed & Walker, 1988). PKPA incorporates the requirement that all states are to give

full faith and credit to prior custody determinations rendered by another state. It also

applies a federal Parent Locator Service (PLS) to help inform the location of the parents’

whereabouts when the Parent violated the home state jurisdiction. This in turn provides

provisions concerning parental kidnapping from state to state and international fleeing

(Freed & Walker, 1988).

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was implemented in 1994 which was

intended to change attitudes toward domestic violence, foster awareness of domestic violence,

improve services and provisions for victims, and revise the manner in which the criminal

justice system responds to domestic violence and sex crimes (Sacco, 2018). The research

states that VAWA has been modified and reauthorized several times later which

addresses more penalties in violations such as, stalking, better protection for abuse, and

provisions for elderly and disabled women. Later throughout VAWA original intent,

research states that the legislation provided enhanced penalties reauthorized by Congress

for repeat stalking offenders; added additional protections for battered and/or trafficked

foreign nationals; created programs for sexual assault victims and American Indian

victims of domestic violence and related crimes; and created programs designed to

improve the public health response to domestic violence (Sacco, 2018).

The UCCJEA was implemented in 1997, which is a uniform state law

regarding jurisdiction in child custody cases, and the act describes the measures for the

protection of children, and parental responsibility. The UCCJEA highlights a few

amendments to the UCCJA, and it combines two federal statutes: (1) PKPA and (2)

VAWA. In harmonizing the UCCJA and PKPA, much of what the UCCJEA does

regarding initial modification, and emergency jurisdiction is to codify what has emerged

as good practice under these statues (Hoff, 1998). The research states that the UCCJEA

introduces new uniform methods for expedited interstate enforcement of custody and

visitation orders, with goals to protect victims of domestic violence who flee interstate

with their children to safety (Hoff, 1998). What the UCCJEA does not cover is regarding

adoption cases and tribal-state child custody jurisdiction but refers to the Uniform Adoption

Act (UAA) from the initial UCCJA from 1994, and refers to the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25

U.S.C. 1901 et seq. to the extent that it is governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Application to Indian Tribes is the only uniformity across all United States because States

would have to treat the child from a tribe as if it were a State of the United States (National

Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws & Spector, 1998). The UCCJA is

replaced by the UCCJEA. The UCCJEA was approved in February 1998 by the

American Bar Association House of Delegates. The UCCJA is replaced by the UCCJEA,

and States therein adopt and implement the UCCJEA to their state laws and provisions.

Chapter three will discuss the research design and methodology, data collection

and trustworthiness of the study. The Appendix A- Case Analysis Guide is the instrument

tool used to collect data, validated by the theorist for policy learning theory. The next

section discusses the technical aspects of how the study was executed.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore whether a district circuit

county court in the state of Maryland lacked uniformity among state-to-state family

courts when conforming to the UCCJEA. The study demonstrated implications within a

case analysis with providing insight on how the judges were left to make decisions on

child custody rulings. Through the lens of public policy Anderson (2003) defined policy

as a relatively stable, purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in

dealing with a problem or a matter of concern. This statement focuses on what is done

instead of what is only proposed or intended, and it differentiates a policy from mere

decision, which is essentially a choice among competing alternatives. Anyebe (2017)

argues that research can influence positive social change on how an act implemented in a

uniform manner can make a societal impact. Public policy, therefore, is that policy

developed and implemented by government agency and officials, though non-state actors

and factors may influence its process (Anyebe, 2017). The research provides public

awareness on uniformity and conformity in judge’s decision-making protocols and

whether the act that was introduced or implemented among state-to-state family courts

was being conducted. In this chapter, I will discuss the research design and rationale, the

role of the researcher, the methodology, and any issues of trustworthiness for this study.

Research Design and Rationale

The following research question guided my study: What factors are associated

with judge decision-making protocols and the application of the Uniform Child Custody

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) when making child custody decisions in the

state of Maryland?

The nature of the study is a general qualitative design using secondary case

analyses and a thematic analysis approach. Using a secondary case analysis review

provided me with detailed inside information on court judges and their current protocols,

interpretation, and values about the UCCJEA. In addition, I gained understanding on how

judges take into consideration the well-being of children in custody cases to make

custody determinations. The current protocols in the UCCJEA revealed that judges did

not adopt or conformed to the UCCJEA basing it on the current act that is in place. Hoff

(2001) argued that court judges across the United States have only applied their own

interpretation of the law and have not fully adopted the UCCJEA. According to the ULC

(2013), the research provides a much better relief for parents and children who suffer

from interstate child-custody disputes. Elrod (2021) argued that the UCCJEA has been

adopted in 49 states, except for Massachusetts, which still uses the UCCJA. The

identification of reoccurring themes that arose during the case analysis and process had

the capacity to uncover information about influence of the lack of uniformity among

state-to-state family courts when judges were left to make decisions on child custody

rulings. The secondary case analysis research method was appropriate to use because it

allowed a review of public cases from family court cases in the district circuit county

court of the state of Maryland. I identified a thematic approach from those cases with

similar reoccurring themes and contexts to answer the research question. Braun and

Clarke (2006) argued that thematic analysis is a useful method for examining the

perspectives of different research participants, highlighting similarities and differences,

and generating unanticipated insights. If readers are not clear about how researchers

analyzed their data or what assumptions informed their analysis, evaluating the

trustworthiness of the research process is difficult (Nowell et al., 2017).

The primary data collection technique was a selection of 10 custody court cases in

the family district court of the state of Maryland. These cases provided an insight for me

to explore the gap in the literature as it relates to determining if judges are conforming to

the UCCJEA. In reviewing the cases, I identified that there are many societal and key

factors contributing to custody decision and arrangements. The in-depth review of cases

was conducted by obtaining completed custody rulings that are made available to the

public upon request from the family district circuit county court. According to Creswell

and Poth (2016) conducting a review of the data by using an interpretive lens and then the

procedures assist to study social or human problems using emerging themes and

identifying any linkages to the theoretical framework.

The case studies or cases record files may be obtained from the Maryland family

district court website database. The clerk administrator or clerk law librarian of the court

maintains records of all matters filed in the district circuit county court. Most of these

records are public documents and available for public review.

Role of the Researcher

For this research, the role of the researcher was that of a case study reviewer.

According to Creswell and Poth (2016), to study the problem, qualitative researchers use

an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of data in a natural setting

sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is both inductive and

deductive and establishes patterns or themes. To begin a qualitative study, the researcher

focuses on understanding a single concept or idea. In this research, I obtained a general

understanding of what it means to be in the place of the professional judge. I was then

able to incorporate the comparison or relating factors. Creswell and Poth (2016) argued

that once the researcher understands the role of the subject, then the research can advance

to using the method of secondary research. Secondary research involves analyzing,

interpreting, or reviewing data to specify how it informs the current research. Creswell

and Poth (2016) argued that all too often, qualitative researchers advance to the

comparison or the relationship analysis without first understanding their core concept or

idea.

For this study, I contacted the county clerk office by making a formal request via

electronic mail (e-mail) on the Maryland family district court website to obtain family

custody cases. The selection of 10 family custody cases and full detailed documents were

requested for research purposes only. There exist no personal or professional

relationships with any of the family district circuit county court, and they are unknown at

this point in time.

As the researcher, I received the custody cases through an accessible computer

required to research own document findings in the Maryland family district court

database. Full case details were provided on which were already transcribed and written

from the outcomes of each ruling. I reviewed the UCCJEA law in its entirety, as well as

the key factors to which judges currently adhere to identify similarities or themes in each

case. The research provided results on identifying whether a judge conforms to the law

by using the list of factors in the UCCJEA. This helped me set the criteria for reviewing

if the protocols from the UCCJEA were in place for the state of Maryland.

As a result of this study, I identified if the application of the current law factors or

other outside factors were applied when the judges are making their decision/rulings.

There were many societal and key factors contributing to custody arrangements or court

final outcomes. To avoid any bias or ethical issues due to professional expertise all

research cases and findings are secured, and password protected in a file. Regardless of

preconceived notions, there was no manipulation of data and the reporting of findings.

The selection of the custody cases was as is when received. As some sensitive topics

arose during data collection, I as the researcher ensured data was protected and that the

study contains the highest level of integrity.

Methodology

Case Analysis and Data Collection

The IRB approval number is 02-14-22-0246945. In this qualitative study I

reviewed 10 custody cases from a family district circuit county court in the state of

Maryland. To obtain the cases, I first had to contact the district circuit county court clerk

by way of e-mail. Once I had contacted the clerk law librarian, they were able to assist

me with the request to obtain family custody court cases from the database. Anyone can

access court records that are publicly available in the database for family law cases. At

first search, I didn’t have the case number or the defendant’s name for the 10 custody

cases that have been completed under a family district circuit county court custody ruling.

However, to obtain specific data for family custody court cases that were publicly

available for my research study, I had to contact the Government Relations and Public

Affairs office for more specific detailed information. As the researcher, I wanted to

ensure the Government Relations and Public Affairs office provided me with data sets

that I would need. This was to ensure I obtained the best selection of family custody

cases. I specifically asked for recent/current time frame ranging from beginning of

calendar year to end of calendar year for the current year. I narrowed the cases from local

district circuit county court specifying the county of choice. The office provided me with

a response as a customer service request from the outside public. In this situation, I relied

on the employee to provide me with the 10 custody case numbers and the data sets based

on what I requested. Once I obtained the 10 cases, I realized I wanted more in-depth full

details. I was directed to go to the courthouse to retrieve the case files. I was successful in

obtaining all the case files and paid a small fee for each printed page. I then reviewed

each case individually and familiarize myself with each case.

The case study is based on real life experiences in a court hearing and ruling as

described from (Yin, 2009). Yin (2009) argued that research involves the study of a case

within a real-life, contemporary context or setting. Further defined by Creswell and Poth

(2016), case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a

real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases)

over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of

information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and

reports), and reports a case description and case themes. Creswell and Poth (2016) argued

that in public policy a case study approach is familiar to social scientists as each area

identifies the study in its own centralized focus.

Instrumentation

Case studies may use different research tools to increase validity. I developed a

case study document review instrumentation to capture data needed to answer the

research question and follow the theoretical framework. The instrumentation example is

enclosed in the Appendix A- Case Analysis Guide. For each case, I was provided with

numerical number. Using the developed tool helped me list areas such as the case title,

date, time, place, subject/s, summary, UCCJEA factors identified, supported decision,

ruling results/determination, and the conclusion/thematic analysis was documented to

achieve the findings. Each area was thoroughly reviewed and based on each specific case.

At the end of each case, I was able to determine if the specific district circuit county court

of the state of Maryland had judges conforming to the UCCJEA. In addition, I was able

to know whether the judge used the current list of factors or took into consideration

outside factors to make their custody rulings.

Data Analysis Plan

When conducting the case analysis, I used the lens of exploration of thematic

analysis in all the cases. I provided the identification of reoccurring of similar themes that

arose during each case study. The full details of each case were thoroughly reviewed in

its entirety. The cases were retrieved and selected from the Maryland district circuit

county court database in February 2022. I, as the researcher, first contacted the Maryland

district circuit county court law librarian using the website contact information. I,

requested assistance via email and was able to obtain 10 family custody court cases that

have been completed, shown in Table 1.

I, as the researcher, was provided specific direction from the Maryland Family

County Court Clerk and was guided to contact the family district court division office of

Government Relations and Public Affairs for detailed information about how to obtain

better data of family custody court cases. Relying on the direction of office of

Government Relations and Public Affairs gave me a more detailed response, even though

I was able to search using the public database on my own. In this situation, I wanted to be

sure I was selecting the best field of search for my case selection. I provided the

Government Relations and Public Affairs office with data sets that I needed to conduct

my research. Typically for data requests, the office would need the time frame,

fiscal/calendar year, jurisdiction (local or statewide) data, and if data fields are known,

such as name, case number, disposition, charges, etc. Also, the request for some data

depended on what was or is being asked. I specifically asked for recent/current time

frame ranging from beginning of calendar year to end of calendar year for the current

year. I narrowed the cases from local district circuit county court specifying the county of

choice. I was able to use the public database to retrieve the case number and data fields to

do specific search options. I was not able to look up the defendant’s name in the database

because I did not know or have any relation with the subjects. Once I obtained 10 cases

with the case number, as shown in Table 1, I was able to go to physically go to the

district circuit county courthouse to obtain the case documents. I found that going in

person to pick up the documents as opposed to receiving the files via email as an option

may have provided a better security of receiving all the case files I needed. Given the

COVID-19 pandemic environment, this was a transactional pick up of court files and it

was quick, rather than sitting in a court setting using an observational study. This

secondary data was more of a peace of mind knowing that I was able to obtain all the

cases printed directly from the court with full details. I did have to pay a small charge for

each page printed. I then reviewed each case individually along with all the supporting

documents/forms and familiarized myself with each case.

Trustworthiness

Qualitative research provides more focus on trustworthiness on whether the

findings of the study itself is credible, transferrable, dependable, and reliable (Korstjens

& Moser, 2018). This research provided the role of the researcher to collect data that is

intended to build integrity into the research process. The overall UCCJEA is the current

law in place, contained with a set list of criteria or key factors that judges must adhere to.

The UCCJEA is a policy implementation that in general is currently used by the state

court judges to assist in determining the outcome in custody rulings. Of these factors’

judges make decisions to protect the child, and to determine jurisdiction for which home

state is best suited for a child (Hoff, 2001).

Credibility

Credibility (or internal validity) of a study is the notion that the results are

realistic and are accurate depictions of the participants (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). The

use of a thorough review of a recently filed cases provided from the law county clerk’s

database is the validation for researcher that ensured that this qualitative research is

indeed credible. A confirmation of credibility was realized once saturation was reached

through the selection of 10 custody cases and the identification of reoccurring similar

themes were consistently being presented while analyzing the cases.

Transferability

Transferability (or external validity) refers to whether the study may be

duplicated. To ensure that this qualitative study is transferrable, the description of the

study does open doors of opportunity to conduct the same research at other district circuit

county courts in other states. The United States has 50 states, and this research explored

one district circuit county court in state of Maryland. There is an unlimited amount of

further research to be continued with this study. This entire study can be duplicated and

applied to another state. This study informs the reader can be replicated in their state or

any other state of their choosing.

Dependability

Dependability refers to whether results are derived using accepted and standard

methods for data collection to produce results that can be trusted. For this qualitative case

study, each requested case was based on the use of secondary data information already

filed and attained. This information was provided from a district circuit county court

database, with an extension of help from the county clerk professional that works for the

court.

Confirmability

Confirmability is the concept of the accurate interpretation of data. For this

qualitative study, after data was provided in the format transcribed, I as the researcher

had the opportunity to review the full details of each case file for accuracy. The review

assisted to answer any clarifying questions using the case instrument tool as a guide,

Appendix A - Case Analysis Guide. I, as the researcher, reviewed and addressed the

explanations in a professionally written response which is the appropriate method for

ensuring confirmability in a qualitative study.

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain insight to whether the lack of

uniformity among state-to-state family courts when judges are left to make decisions on

child custody rulings and whether the state of Maryland and its district circuit county

court, conform to the UCCJEA. Whether the court judge includes the UCCJEA and

applies that current law in their decision-making process. Whether the judge conducted

and applied the law was unknown to the public, and it is was only made aware to those

involved in the trial hearings receiving the outcome. However, the research assisted in

identifying if such protocols are applied and taken into consideration the best interest of

the child. It also informs the public on what is currently being done in courts. A

recommendation is suggested that judges can work on a better way to limit the

consequences that are developed from custody court rulings. Policies should focus on

helping to create a societal change as time moves forward, which will develop positive

outcomes for a continued structured development. It is important on how law is enacted

and the impact of implementing these law shapes the future.

Another recommendation that judges may direct more attention, resources,

training, and become more experts to ensure decision making in custody rulings provide a

societal safety net. Adapting and applying laws has many strengthens and weakness

specifically on human biases and fact base evidence presented in custody courts. Judges

could continue to learn policies and how to apply it in society as social adaptation. My

research assists in identifying common patterns when using current protocols in custody

trial cases, in which helps to provide truth to the validity of decision making, and to be

able to trust that the best interest of the child is being considered.

My research could assist to promote societal change in processes used by state

courts for future policy formation. By providing a qualitative approach of a case study,

judges are now able to gain more information on the impact their protocols have on their

society. The study has the potential to contribute to the gap in the literature regarding the

influence that the lack of uniformity and implementation of policymaking activities in

courts in the state of Maryland.

Further research may assist judges to shape their protocols to apply a better

interpretation of policy designs or law, and to provide better practices in court to obtain

better outcomes. In the policy learning theory or lessons learned outcomes, it is important

to note that in many custody cases judges take into consideration their top priority, which

is to ensure and preserve the child’s best interest. However, further exploration of the

research assists to provide the public with a better understanding why in the initial

UCCJA, the best interest language in the jurisdictional sections of the UCCJA was not

intended to be an invitation to address the merits of the custody disputes. The research

explains that the UCCJEA eliminates the term best interest to clearly distinguish between

the jurisdictional standards and the substantive standards relating to custody and

visitation of children. Throughout the research the term best interest is one of the outside

gap factors. The term is not elaborately defined on what in fact is best or advocated for

regarding the child in a custody ruling. The term best interest has been updated in its

definition using the UCCJEA. It is one of the many focus areas explored referring to the

gap in this research study how it is now currently being used and why was it eliminated

from the UCCJEA.

Chapters four and five of the study will discuss the actual results of the case study

analysis from the family district circuit county court of the state of Maryland. The

findings and/or results determine if and how the UCCJEA is being implemented, adopted,

or adhered to by the court judges. To conclude, there will be a discussion on the

interpretation of the findings of the study, the limitations that were experienced, along

with recommendations for future research and the implications of the study on the

potential impact for positive social change and policy making. Using the policy learning

theoretical framework in this study has implications for policymaking in areas wherein

the choices of judges have the capacity to affect an entire community.

Chapter 4: Results

Data collection for this research provided results of family custody cases from one

district circuit county courts in the state of Maryland. I conducted a structured in-depth

review of each case through the lens of exploration using a thematic analysis approach.

Results identified reoccurring themes that arose during each case and across cases.

Research results contribute to the body of knowledge needed to address the problem of a

lack of uniformity amongst state family courts when judges consider the best interest of

the child when making custody determinations. Although the UCCJEA exists, courts vary

from state to state, and judges consider a child’s preference on a case-by-case basis

(UCL, 2013). I found no existing research on how judges conform to the UCCJEA in the

state of Maryland, and it is not made aware to the public. By exploring the current factors

from the UCCJEA and any outside factors it was identified in this research that judges

continue to make judicial custody decisions on a case-by-case basis. The selection of 10

custody cases provided the response to the research question and addressed the gap found

in the literature and in practice.

The purpose of this study was to provide insight on how court judges currently

interpret the UCCJEA, and the current measures taken into consideration when making

judicial custody decisions. I explored whether judges conform to the UCCJEA, if they

applied their own interpretation of the law, and whether they have or have not fully

adopted the UCCJEA. I also explored if judges used any outside factors to help shape

their decision making during custody rulings. By revealing deeper understanding of

outside factors, the research results identified: (a) how the weight of a child’s voice is

measured by judges in decision making expertise and if in fact it was present, (b) the

wishes of the child's parent, (c) the relationship of the child with each parent, (d) the

ability of each parent to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a safe

environment.

The following research question guided my study: What factors are associated

with judge decision-making protocols and the application of the UCCJEA when making

child custody decisions in the state of Maryland? In this chapter, I will discuss the setting

of the study, the demographics, the selected cases, the reoccurring themes found within

each case, how data was collected, data analysis, trustworthiness, and the results of the

study.

Setting of the Study

This research was conducted exclusively using secondary data retrieved from

current cases within the Maryland family district circuit county court database and with

assistance from the clerk law librarian. The clerk law librarian provides guidance and

direction on where to obtain the cases when contacting them via telephone or emailing

them on the Maryland district circuit county court website. The Maryland courts website

provide information about court records and is available to anyone in the public to access

court records in the database for review.

In this research study, my initial data collection desire was to have in-person

observation at the district circuit county court; however, the risks associated with

COVID-19 made data collection more difficult to do in person. The possibility of being

in a public setting or the court environment would have led to a higher risk of

contamination and spread of the virus on any individual. However, an in-depth review of

cases was a useful endeavor.

Since March 2020, COVID-19 has impacted and changed the daily lives of

everyone. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the way students learn and researchers

collect data. There was a pressing need to innovate and implement alternative educational

and assessment strategies. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an opportunity to pave

the way for introducing digital learning (Dhawan, 2020). Therefore, I decided to conduct

secondary case analysis with cases that had already occurred and reached a final

disposition in the Maryland district circuit county court database.

The new virtual way of learning provided me, the researcher, with the ability to

physically search and obtain court documents that provided detailed information

necessary to use to determine my findings. I was able to use the search criteria to

specifically narrow my selection in the Maryland district circuit county court database. I

used the fields of family custody law cases. I was able to obtain full details of the cases in

writing and was able to identify what court forms were being used, as well as judges final

court orders. The outcome of this study gave a more in-depth review of identifying key

factors and identifying any outside societal factors that judges currently used as their

protocols when making custody determinations. As the researcher, I conducted a

thorough analysis of any outside factors being used in addition to the current list of

UCCJEA factors. Outside factors, may have enhanced and further the need for judges to

make better decisions in custody rulings to protect the safety of the child. This research

provided me with more flexibility to reach the results on shared decision making

outcomes for judges on jurisdiction determinations on which home state is best suited for

a child in custody rulings. The results of the research contribute to societal change for

other researchers to conduct similar research or studies amongst any other states district

circuit county courts.

Demographics

This study included a selection of 10 family custody cases using a thematic

analysis approach in reviewing secondary data from a family district circuit county court

database in the state of Maryland. The subjects that were identified throughout the cases

are commonly listed as the judge, the family magistrate, the parties such as the plaintiff

and the defendant, custody investigators such as the sheriff, civil and legal counsel or law

attorneys, and other professionals in their areas of expertise when selected referring to the

court proceeding reports.

Typically for family custody court cases data requests required identifying the

fields of search using the public case database such as

• The time frame, ranging from beginning of calendar year to end of

calendar year for the current year (fiscal/calendar year)

• Jurisdiction (local or statewide) data

• Known data fields such as name, case number, disposition, charges

• District court county of choice.

The literature supports the case study by basing it on real life experiences in a

court hearing and ruling as described from (Yin, 2009). Yin (2009) argued that research

involves the study of a case within a real-life, contemporary context or setting. Further

defined by Creswell and Poth (2016), case study research is a qualitative approach in

which the investigator explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or

multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection

involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual

material, and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case themes.

I focused on whether the district circuit county court state of Maryland is

currently conforming to the UCCJEA. The research provided results on if judges rule

outside of the list of the factors associated with the UCCJEA. The research determined if

the application of the UCCJEA factors were in fact applied or implemented when the

judges were making their decision/rulings. The term best interest was the one of the many

focus areas to explore the gap in the research study, how it was being used, and why was

best interest was eliminated from the UCCJEA.

Table 1

Custody Cases from the Maryland District Circuit County Court Database

Custody Cases

Case Number

Case Type

File Date

Disposition

Disp. Date

CAD21-01226

Custody

1/22/2021

Final Order

11/17/2021

CAD21-01244

Custody

1/25/2021

Case Closed

9/18/2021

CAD21-01454

Custody

1/27/2021

Petition Dismissed

7/14/2021

CAD21-01458

Custody

1/28/2021

Case Closed

8/4/2021

CAD21-01572

Custody

2/3/2021

Case Closed

4/22/2021

CAD21-01588

Custody

2/4/2021

Final Order

4/19/2021

CAD21-01590

Custody

2/4/2021

Case Closed

3/1/2021

CAD21-04059

Custody

4/7/2021

Petition Dismissed

9/21/2021

CAD21-04539

Custody

4/16/2021

Final Order

10/14/2021

CAD21-05396

Custody

5/7/2021

Case Closed

7/22/2021

Note: The cases were retrieved and selected from the Maryland district circuit county

court database in February 2022

Figure 1

Outside Factors

Supported Decision

Making

Custody

Determinations

The Best Interest of the

Child

Explains judges must be

able to determine and

depend on custody

investigators or other

professionals in their areas

of expertise, or by referring

to the court proceeding

reports.

Explains court dynamics

and how judges rely on

professional evaluators

and often disregard or

fail to include the tests

conducted and end up

providing their own

biases.

It is the standard in courts as a

judge or professional

individual that provides an

appropriate recommendation

based on evidence during

custody decisions to consider

the future of the child’s well-

being.

Note: Gathered information from multiple resources to determine outside factors:

Supported Decision Making (Glen, 2019); Custody Determinations (Nathan, 2015); The

Best Interest of the Child (Domitrovich, 2019).

Note: Gathered information from multiple resources to determine reoccurring themes:

(UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018); (Maryland Code, Family Law

Article § 9-107); (Maryland Code, Family Law Article., § 5-203).

Jurisdiction

Standard

Court Forms

Suitable

Environment

Best interest of

the Child

Figure 2

Reoccurring Themes

Table 2

UCCJEA Factors Versus Maryland District Circuit County Court

UCCJEA factors

Maryland District Circuit County Court

Temporary Emergency

Jurisdiction and Judicial

Communication

The Complaint for Custody form mentions if the

minor child(ren) lived in the state of Maryland for at

least six months. Therefore, the court can determine

their right to exercise and hold a court custody trial in

the state of Maryland or motion an order to dismiss.

Modifying an order

The Order for Default mentions that the Maryland

court has jurisdiction to determine custody rulings

under Maryland Rule 2-613 which is the precursor to

a default judgment. While often viewed as a type of

sanction, it is better understood merely as a

procedural means of moving a case along where a

party fails to respond to a pleading. Therefore, the

court can determine their right to exercise and hold a

court custody trial in the state of Maryland or motion

an order to dismiss.

Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction

The Complaint for Custody form mentions if the

minor child(ren) lived in the state of Maryland for at

least six months. Therefore, the court can determine

their right to exercise and hold a court custody trial in

the state of Maryland or motion an order to dismiss.

Inconvenient Forum, By Reason of

Conduct (“Unclean Hands”)

The court provided a "Notification to parties of

contemplated dismissal" which states pursuant to

Rule 2-507(b) any defendant who has not been

served, or over whom the court has not otherwise

acquired jurisdiction with 120 days from the issuance

of original process directed to that defendant, may be

dismissed without prejudice as a party, for lack of

jurisdiction, 30 days after service of the notice, unless

prior to that time a written motion showing good

cause to defer the entry of the order of dismissal is

filed.

Judicial Communication, Interstate

Cooperation, Protection Orders,

Information to Submit to the

Court, Enforcement, International

Order, Tribal Court Order

The court recognizes that courts should not decline or

dismiss to exercise jurisdiction under the state of

Maryland due to the parent seeking safety across

jurisdictional lines to escape abuse or violence.

Data Collection

Number of Cases

This research included a selection of 10 family custody court cases for review

from a family district circuit county court of Maryland, as shown in Table 1. I self-

collected the data using the public family court database on the internet via the Maryland

district county court website. However, I did request assistance from the Maryland

district circuit county court clerk law librarian to ensure I was using the database the

correct way. I wanted to ensure I was using the best data field options on the public

database. The selected family custody cases all had a final disposition as either closed or

dismissed. The cases ranged from initial filing dates from January 2021 through May

2021.

Location, Frequency, and Duration of Data Collection

The UCCJEA is a state law that deals more on jurisdiction distinctions among

states within the United States of America (National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges, 2018). The UCCJEA is currently based on a state level and is a policy that

is implemented in state family courts (ULC, 2013). There are general concerns for what

protocols are in place and how it varies from state to state. Going into the research study,

I kept the focus on exploring the impact and the lack of uniformity among state-to-state

family courts, and what were judges using to make decisions on child custody rulings.

When conducting data collection, I reviewed the purpose of the UCCJEA and focus on

the act itself when thoroughly reviewing each case. Revisiting the UCCJEA current

factors helped me with the thematic analysis approach.

During the case analysis I addressed the following within each case:

• Summary

• If the UCCJEA current factors were clearly identified

• If supported decision was present

• The ruling results/conclusions

• The reoccurring themes identified, shown in Figure 2

The summary provided a synopsis of the entire case with the known issue/s and facts of

the case presented. Using the current UCCJEA factors from the act itself assisted with

addressing the research question within each case. During the research review of each

case, I was able to identify outside factors as shown is Figure 1. I was able to identify if

supported decisions were used, and if the court judge used the current protocols from the

UCCJEA or any outside factors not mentioned in the UCCJEA to influence their decision

making. For example, I examined if there were any professional expertise being

solicitated or appointed to further support the custody determination or if the judge used

their own interpretations or biases in this case.

The ruling results/determinations were used to identify if the judges were taking

into consideration the well-being of child/children best interests to make their custody

determinations. I addressed whether the current protocols in the UCCJEA revealed that

the judge adopted, adhered, or conformed to the UCCJEA. Lastly, the

conclusion/thematic analysis, as shown in Figure 2, provided the identification of

reoccurring themes that arose during the case study. For example, I addressed if the

current judge protocol process had the capacity to uncover information about the

influence in the lack of uniformity among state-to-state family courts when judges were

left to make decisions on child custody rulings.

How the Data was Recorded

To conduct a thematic case analysis, I thoroughgoingly reviewed each case and

all its documents or court forms that were included in the court case file. Each case file

ranged from 20-50 pages. Each case was recorded by providing a synopsis of the facts

and details presented in the court proceedings. The findings were placed on an excel

spreadsheet using the Appendix A- Case Analysis Guide tool guide for data collection.

All the key points were addressed using the technique and methodology during data

collection as mentioned in chapter 3. Each case was reviewed to determine if the

UCCJEA was in fact being referred to or used, and if the current UCCJEA factors were

identified. Each case was reviewed to determine if any supported decision was present. In

addition, each case final order or disposition was recorded to capture the decision made

by the court judge. Within each case, the final orders were reviewed based on the best

interest of the child(ren) and any reoccurring themes presented, shown in Figure 2.

Lastly, the final orders provided if an appropriate recommendation was made by the

judge based on evidence given or presented during custody trial to consider the future of

the child’s well-being. The best interest of a child determined if the standard practice or

protocol was upheld in the courts or if the judge was using a case-by-case basis approach.

Variations in Data Collection and Unusual Circumstances

This study had no variations in data collection methodology and was performed as

planned in Chapter 3. The same procedure of data collection was used for each case.

There were no unusual circumstances encountered during the process of data collection.

Data Analysis

Process for Identification of Themes

After data was collected, I discovered the reoccurring themes in Figure 2, such as:

the court implemented their own forms as their own protocols. The judges used the court

forms to determine their rulings as supporting documents. In the court forms, I was able

to identify similarities of the UCCJEA factors, however the actual UCCJEA was never

referred to or referenced, and it was not clearly stated that the court was using the

UCCJEA or adopting or conforming to the UCCJEA. In Table 2, the court may have

adopted some terminology used from the UCCJEA and only mentioned similarities in

their court forms. Table 2 lists the UCCJEA factors verses what was similarly mentioned

in the Maryland district circuit county court forms. Further explanation of the UCCJEA

factors listed and mentioned in the background section of Chapter 1.

(1) Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction and Judicial Communication, which explains

that the judicial court can implement the act and have the protocols in place to

exercise the court’s authority on granting temporary emergency jurisdiction even

when the court is not the home state (or the state with preferred jurisdiction)

(UCCJEA, §204).

(2) Modifying an order which explains that the court must consider keeping judicial

communication by working with the responsible administrative office of the

courts to modify existing forms to facilitate requests for temporary emergency

jurisdiction (UCCJEA, §202).

(3) Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction which explains that the UCCJEA sets forth four

jurisdictional bases to help a court determine whether it has “initial child-custody

jurisdiction” over a custody matter (in addition to temporary emergency

jurisdiction) (UCCJEA, §201). The four bases for initial child custody jurisdiction

are:

a. (a) Home state, which is defined as, the state in which a child lived with a

parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months

immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding

(UCCJEA, §102(7)).

b. (b) Significant connection, which is defined as, a court may exercise

significant connection jurisdiction only if there is no home state and two

conditions are met: (1) the child and the child’s parents, or the child and at

least one parent or a person acting as a parent, must have “a significant

connection with the state other than mere physical presence”; and (2)

substantial evidence must be available in the state concerning the child’s

“care, protection, training, and personal relationships.” (UCCJEA,

§201(a)(2)).

c. (c) More appropriate forum, explains that the court having jurisdiction

under one of the four jurisdictional bases described may decline to

exercise jurisdiction if the court finds that it is an inconvenient forum and

a court in another state is a more appropriate forum (UCCJEA, §207).

d. (d) No other state or vacuum, explains as the last resort. Vacuum

jurisdiction is available when no state satisfies any of the three

jurisdictional bases described. When a family has traveled from state to

state with only brief stays in any one place, it may be necessary for a court

to exercise this form of jurisdiction (UCCJEA, §201)

(4) Inconvenient Forum, By Reason of Conduct (“Unclean Hands”) which explains

that a court must decline to exercise jurisdiction if a party has engaged in

unjustifiable misconduct that resulted in the court’s jurisdiction over the case

(UCCJEA, §208).

(5) Judicial Communication, Interstate Cooperation, Protection Orders, Information

to Submit to the Court, Enforcement, International Order, Tribal Court Order

which explains that the court must be able to recognize that international cases

may involve the HCCH on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as

well as the UCCJEA. Further explained, the court must be able to recognize the

reasons for declining to exercise jurisdiction on inconvenient forum grounds, such

as, if the parties are in different states because of violence, it could be unsafe for

the victim to return to the home state to litigate a custody case. In addition, due to

separation violence, a victim may be at increased risk for physical violence or

homicide; forcing a return to a state where the abuser resides could be deadly. The

court must be able to recognize that courts should not decline to exercise

jurisdiction under the UCCJEA’s “unjustifiable conduct” provision when the

parent seeking jurisdiction fled across jurisdictional lines to escape abuse

(UCCJEA, §201).

Emergent Themes

The themes in Figure 2, reoccurred in each case confirm that judges make

decisions on child custody rulings using jurisdiction, standard court forms, suitable

environment, and the best interest of the child. Within the case analysis, it appears that

judges only follow what is presented via the court documents, there is no determination

on human emotions tied to their decisions. The judges are using their own interpretation

on a case-by-case basis using the four reoccurring themes mentioned in Figure 2. The

judges refer and use only the Maryland family law codes in all the court forms. There is

no evidence of reference of using the UCCJEA. The court uses family law, which is

defined as a branch of the legal field that deals with issues relating to familial

relationships. These examples consist of divorce, child custody, and child support, etc.

The main reoccurring theme identified before proceeding in any custody court trial is

jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the first factor to ensure the judges have the right to make any

court orders prior to making determinations in their county circuit court. The court in this

research adheres to jurisdiction on which home state is best suited for the best interest of

the child.

When reviewing the cases, it was important to identify if judges rely on

professional evaluators and determining if they often disregard or fail to include the tests

or reporting from the professional experts conducted and end up providing their own

biases (Nathan, 2015). The research revealed that court judges rely on what is being

stated or written in the court forms and rely on outside factors such as professional input

if the court forms request for professional input. When reviewing the custody cases,

commonly, the plaintiff makes a formal request using the Complaint for Custody form. In

this form there are options to request for a court-appointed expert; an initial conference

with the court; a mediation by a court-sponsored settlement program; and others. In

addition, there must be a selection made by the plaintiff to request for custody/visitation,

mediation by a private mediator, for evaluation by a mental health professional, for an

appointment of counsel to represent child; and a conference with the Court; and others.

The themes identified in data are based upon the frequency of their appearance in

the case analysis, shown in Figure 2. Below is a list of reoccurring themes and their

associated meanings as implied in this research.

o UCCJEA Factors:

o Jurisdiction: mentioned in the UCCJEA is used or adopted but not

referred to in the district circuit county court of Maryland, when the

minor child(ren) has lived in the state of Maryland for at least six

months.

o Outside Factors:

o Standard Court Forms: Court forms that are approved by the court and

are most used with each case (1) Motion and Affidavit for an

emergency hearing; (2) Complaint for Custody which refers to the

(Maryland Code, Family Law Art., § 5-203). (3) Civil Domestic Case

Information Report.

o Suitable Environments: When the parent that requests for custody of

the child(ren) provides an adequate environment for the child(ren)

such as financial stability, a home on which the parent/s pays for

rent/mortgage and utilities, food, and household items, provides

education, and any necessary requirements for the child in which the

child needs.

o Best Interest of the Child: When judges make the custody

determinations, while keeping and protecting the best interest of the

child. Rulings are determined based on the prior three outside factors

mentioned; Jurisdiction; using and relying on the standard court forms

(courts own protocol) and a suitable environment.

One major theme was identified on whether the current judge protocol process

had the capacity to uncover information about the influence in the lack of uniformity

among state-to-state family courts. I analyzed if judges were following the UCCJEA

exactly how the factors were listed in the act. For example, a reoccurring theme identified

in each case were that judges based their decision making on what was written on court

forms. Judges were left to make decisions on child custody rulings that were solely using

their own interpretation. Another theme identified was, if the court judges relied on other

professional input, such as custody investigators or courts appoint mental-health experts

like psychologists, psychiatrists, or social workers. Identifying if judges rely on

professional evaluators and determining if they often disregard or fail to include the tests

or reporting from the professional experts conducted and end up providing their own

biases (Nathan, 2015). The findings in the research informed the public to better

understand if judges were relying on supported decisions with professionals in court

rulings, specifically in the state of Maryland. Other similar themes were identified

regarding court dynamics or the child’s best interest and whether current judge’s

decision-making protocols were factoring in or taking the child’s best interest into

consideration. It was realized in the findings, that judges based their decisions on a case-

by-case basis, whether they used the same or different protocols each time.

I, as the researcher, was able to identify if judges conformed to the UCCJEA to

help shape processes of future policy formation or their protocols during custody rulings.

My reserach adds to the field and contributes to positive social change to identify if

biases still can appear in policy designs when a law or act is introduced/implemented.

Data elements used to conduct this study was based on the UCCJEA as a uniformity law

in custody and enforcement, which describes the respect of parental responsibility and

measures for the protection of children. Data elements assisted to determine how judges

conform to the UCCJEA in Maryland and how they determine custody rulings based on

case-by-case basis. A review of the factors was conducted that contribute to custody

arrangements. My research identified if the application of the current law factors or other

outside factors were applied when the judges are making their decision/rulings. My

reserach assisted in identifying the key factors and protocols currently applied in the

courts, and how it was conducted or measured by judges in decision making expertise

and/or evaluations. Throughout the exploration of cases, the study assisted in identifying

whether there are current measures along with a current list of criteria taking into

consideration when making judicial custody decisions. Therefore, ultimately determining

if judges were conforming to the UCCJEA and whether the protocols assist judges in

their decision making when they use any outside factors. I, as the researcher, also

determined if judges could benefit from a policy learning theory or lesson learned

outcome that may be used for better practices in court. By adhering and conforming to

UCCJEA, the implementation of better policy is a public policy learned improvement

that can be made aware to court judges to assist them in better outcomes or rulings in

court, and in return promote society awareness to implement change.

Case Final Disposition Examples

In this research, to determine judge’s decision-making protocols, I have provided

a few examples of their final dispositions from the court proceedings. One final order of

the court determined that the "court case was not an emergency, and that the complaint

for custody should proceed the normal course.” The judge reviewed the supporting

standard court documents “that after three days from the date of court filing the plaintiff

withdrew their complaint for custody request.” Then the court judge “ordered that the

plaintiff motion was denied.” There was no mention of why and there was no follow up

from the court on why the plaintiff withdrew.

On another final order of the court, the plaintiff filed and used the standard court

form to request for "waiver of prepaid costs" due to being unemployed and under

unemployment insurance benefits. This form assisted the court judge in knowing

financial background and current information. The plaintiff provided a written statement

on the court form that they provide rent and utilities, food, household items, and adequate

or necessary requirements for the child in which the child needs. “The court order

determined that the court case was not an emergency, and that the complaint for custody

should proceed the normal course. The court grants the order regarding the request for

waiver of prepaid costs due to the financial situation presented.” Within the standard

court documents, on a Sheriff's return form, after a summons was issued, returned with

multiple attempts to contact the defendant. The Sheriff returned written statement that

multiple attempts were made by knocking on the door, called the number listed, and was

unable to contact the defendant. The court judge provided a "notification to parties of

contemplated dismissal" which states pursuant to Maryland rule 2-507(b), which defines

any defendant who has not been served, or over whom the court has not otherwise

acquired jurisdiction with 120 days from the issuance of original process directed to that

defendant, may be dismissed without prejudice as a party, for lack of jurisdiction, 30 days

after service of the notice, unless prior to that time a written motion showing good cause

to defer the entry of the order of dismissal is filed. “The court's final disposition state that

the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is denied, and the motion to transfer the case to a

different county was denied, and further decided that the case be closed.”

On another court final order, “the court follows a Maryland Rule 2-504, in which

proof of financial situation must be presented at the court, such as past three years of tax

returns with all supporting documents including W2s, K-1s, and 1099s. (Schedule K-1 is

an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax form issued annually for an investment in a

partnership. The purpose of the Schedule K-1 is to report each partner's share of the

partnership's earnings, losses, deductions, and credits. Schedule K-1 serves a similar

purpose as Form 1099). The court requests on a standard court form, that the plaintiff

requesting for custody must provide current year to date pay stubs, documents supporting

all claimed work-related child-care expenses; documentation of costs of health insurance

for the parties minor child(ren); financial statement per MD Rule 9-203; and all pension

information. Court requests for the discovery/motion deadlines which the parties must

provide identification of any expert witnesses, and any computer-generated evidence. A

parenting plan is also requested, which must be submitted 10 days before the settlement

conference. The court ordered that the parties shall attend both sessions of the parent

education program sponsored by the National Family Resiliency Center, Inc. (NFRC)

which they must pay a fee of $70 per person. The court ordered a mediation to be further

screened by the Mediation department. If found suitable, the court ordered that both

parties must attend at least two sessions with the Parenting Mediator assigned by the

court.” The judge requested “further support from the Family Support Services which

provided a screening recommendation, that the parents or both parties should attend a

parenting education seminar sponsored by the NFRC and recommended only child access

mediation (which means both parties shall attend (2) two sessions with a Parenting

Mediator assigned by the court). Final order made by the court granting joint legal

custody and shared physical custody of the (1) minor child. When the minor becomes

eligible to attend Pre-Kindergarten, both parties should select a school in the District of

Columbia that offers a bilingual program, and that both parties should consult one

another on all major decision involving the child. The order is closed.”

Lastly, on another final order, the jurisdiction under Maryland law is the first

order of the court to make judicial determinations about the custody. “The court judge

saw in the standard court documents that the plaintiff was in endangerment and/or

violence was present in the case. The standard court documents that the plaintiff and the

child live together for at least six months prior to filing the complaint. The plaintiff hasn't

participated in any other litigation concerning the custody of the child in Maryland or in

any other state. The court awards sole legal and physical custody of the minor child for

the safety of the plaintiff and the child.”

Discrepant Cases

This study revealed that there were indeed discrepancies, and truly were based on

case-by-case basis. In some of the cases, the judges were quick to dismiss a case based on

the first order of the court, which determined that the court case was not an emergency,

and whether the complaint for custody should proceed the normal course. For example,

one case resulted that after three days from the date of court filing the plaintiff withdrew

their complaint for custody request. Then the court judge ordered that the plaintiff motion

was denied. There was no mention of why and there was no follow up from the court on

why the plaintiff withdrew. As the researcher, one possibility of why the plaintiff

withdrew is based on my assumption that the form wasn’t filled out correctly or

completely. It may have been due to the form’s language being intimidating and

overwhelming to the person filling out the forms. A recommendation for the future, using

the policy learning theory for best practices and improvements would be revising the

forms to make it clear and easier to understand. It would be good to appoint a court form

advisor that the court provides to assist the public with filling out the forms. The

language and interpretation of court forms can be intimidating. There seemed to be a

normal judge protocol and no human tendency to have general concerns, it was impartial,

and no follow up on the why the withdrawal was made. It was dismissed with no further

action.

Another discrepancy discovered in some of the cases did not rely or use any

supportive decision-making experts and the judges did not rely on these experts to base

their decisions. There were inconsistencies and lack of uniformity on supportive

decisions. In some of the cases the child’s presence or weight of opinion or say in court

was not present. There were no evidence or confirmation on truly determining a safe

environment from a professional expertise (example; social worker). All written

responses on the court orders were based on what the plaintiff stated and what the

defendant stated on the court forms. All provided written responses were the only proof

that judges referred to and what was written on the court documents. The Judges only

adhered to the Maryland family law.

In some cases, there were supportive decisions, and judges issued court final

orders based on the recommendations of court appointed a family mediator, or a family

magistrate, or an interpreter, or on a sheriff’s return of response from a writ of summons,

etc.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness

Qualitative research provides more focus on trustworthiness on whether the

findings of the study itself is credible, transferrable, dependable, and reliable (Korstjens

& Moser, 2018). This research provides the role of the researcher to collect data that is

intended to build integrity into the research process. The overall UCCJEA is the current

law in place, contained with a set list of criteria or key factors that judges must adhere to.

The UCCJEA is a policy implementation that in general is currently used by the state

court judges to assist in determining the outcome in custody rulings. Of these factors’

judges make decisions to protect the child, and to determine jurisdiction for which “home

state” is best suited for a child (Hoff, 2001). The use of final disposition of custody cases

validated and ensured that this qualitative research is indeed credible. Data collection and

the analysis has been precise, consistent, and exhaustive throughout the review of the

selection of 10 custody case files.

The use of secondary case data was used to explore a better understanding of

how the weight of a child’s voice is measured by judges in decision making expertise; as

well as the wishes of the child's parent; the relationship of the child with each parent; the

ability of each parent to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care and a safe

environment, and many others. There was no deviation from the strategies discussed in

Chapter 3. For this study, saturation was reached rather quickly which gave a great

variety of different real-life scenarios to further demonstrate the reoccurrence of themes,

shown in Figure 2, thus increasing credibility of the results. The trustworthiness accepts

the research findings to build future research upon them, and to utilize them to inform

public policy. Public policy guides and provides insight to the public to become aware

and to better understand current judge decision protocols in their own community.

Credibility

Credibility of a study is the notion that the results are realistic and are accurate

depictions of the participants (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). For this study, the Appendix A-

Case Analysis Guide was used in addition to the customary procedures associated with

ethical research practices. The case analysis guide assisted to address the contents within

the case details, such as, providing a synopsis of the entire case of the known issue/s and

facts presented; the subjects or persons involved in the case; the relevant factors used;

any supported decision present, the court judge current protocols; court appointed

expertise, or external professional experts to influence the judge’s decision making;

clarifying any underlying values; financial and social environmental factors, and the final

ruling results. Lastly, the case analysis guide assisted with determining the outcomes or

consequences of the parties within the case court documents, such as, the written

testimonies, court orders, summons, and the parties/parent’s relationship between

themselves and the child. This analysis ensured that this qualitative research is indeed

credible because standard court forms were used. There was no deviation from the

strategies discussed in Chapter 3. The use of a thorough review of a recently filed and

final case disposition provided from the Maryland district circuit county court database is

the validation for the researcher that ensures that this qualitative research is indeed

credible. For this study, a confirmation of credibility was realized when the 10 cases

reached saturation. Saturation was reached when the reoccurring themes appeared more

frequently within each case, therefore increased the credibility of the results. This study is

intended to be an educational resource for researchers, mentors, and students.

Transferability

Transferability refers to whether the study may be duplicated. To ensure that this

qualitative study is transferrable, the description of the study will open doors of

opportunity to conduct the same research at other district circuit county courts in other

states. This entire study can be duplicated and applied to another state, or county to

inform the reader of whether the study could be replicated in their state or any other state

or county of their choosing.

The United States has 50 states, and this research is exploring one district circuit

county court within the state of Maryland. To ensure that this qualitative study is

transferrable, the description of the case analysis is clear, and the methodology was

executed as planned in Chapter 3. In-depth reviews of the cases were conducted,

recorded, and analyzed. According to Korstjens and Moser (2018), the reader of the study

determines transferability, as they know whether the study could be replicated in their

environment. There is an unlimited amount of further research to be continued with this

study in other states or counties. If a researcher has access to their public court county

databases in another county or state, then conducting the study in other county court or

state within the United States can have a vast opportunity to conduct the same research

study.

Dependability

Dependability refers to whether results are derived using accepted and standard

methods for data collection to produce results that can be trusted. For this qualitative case

study each requested custody case was based on the use of secondary data information

already filed and attained. Dependability is important in this study because it establishes

the research findings as consistent and repeatable in another county or state. The findings

are consistent with the case analysis data collected. The evaluation of the findings,

interpretation, and recommendations of the study are all supported by data as received

from a district circuit county court database.

Confirmability

Confirmability is the concept of the accurate interpretation of data. I, as the

researcher, ensured that the degree to which the findings of the research study can be

confirmed by other researchers. Researchers can use the case information details listed in

Table 1, which are the list of 10 custody cases from the Maryland district circuit county

court database to validate data. Confirmability establishes the facts of data and the

interpretations of the findings. Confirmability is not figments of the researcher’s

imagination; it is clearly derived from data.

For this qualitative study, the review assisted to answer and clarify questions

using the case instrument tool, Appendix A- Case Analysis Guide. After data was

obtained in the format transcribed from the database, I, as the researcher had the

opportunity to review each case file in thorough with all the supportive court document

forms. The court orders and full details of the cases reviewed assisted with providing the

explanations of the research findings in a professionally written response, which is the

appropriate method for ensuring confirmability in a qualitative study.

Results

Answering the Research Question

This research study was conducted to answer the following Research Question:

What factors are associated with judge decision-making protocols and the application of

the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) when making

child custody decisions in the state of Maryland? Based on the themes identified through

analysis of data through the lens of the theoretical framework, shown in Figure 2, the

findings suggest that there is a lack of consistency in the district circuit county courts.

Judges are currently handling each case on a case-by-case basis, in which I, as the

researcher can agree that different scenarios do provide different results. To address the

gap in the research, there was no mention of child’s presence in court to voice their

preference on custody determinations. A child’s presence in court was only approved if

the parent declaring custody allowed the child to be at the court, and majority of the time

the child was a minor.

The only time a child was evaluated in my case analysis was when an interpreter

was used. The interpreter declared that the child was in a happy environment with the

current parent. The interpreter was provided by a law firm which represented their client

in court and was able to provide more details to the judge. The recommendations from

the expert provided a stronger defense on whether the parent was a proper fit for the child

and therefore convincing the judge for granting sole legal and physical custody of the

child. The interpreter was able to determine if there was a significant connection with the

child and if the child has a close bond with the parent. This case provided an affidavit

which gave more detail the child's preference. An affidavit is a written statement

confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court. The interpreter served as a

supportive decision as an outside factor, shown in Figure 1, and was able to provide

supporting documentation that contributed to validation from the parent that the child was

provided a suitable and healthy environment. This included education as the child is

currently in school in the state of Maryland and, enjoys school and has many friends. In

addition, the affidavit mentions that the child adjusted well to life in United States and

considers it home. The affidavit mentions that the plaintiff and the child maintain a strong

relationship or bond. The interpreter mentions the plaintiff has been present in the child's

life since birth providing continuous emotional and financial support and stability

(suitable environment). The child's necessities are being provided to include food, shelter,

clothing, medicine, school supplies, etc. These outside factors, as shown in Figure 1,

were helpful as support to assist judges with their decision making.

The research results identified that judges use supportive decision only when

selected on the court forms to be used, and then they use the court forms to assist them

with making better decisions for custody rulings. However, in the cases analysis there

were inconsistencies, and sometime no supportive decision was present.

The gap continues to exist and court judges do not conform to the UCCJEA or

refer to the act itself based on the 10 cases analyzed. The court may use the first UCCJEA

factor on jurisdiction and can easily dismiss the case if the first factor of jurisdiction is

not clearly addressed in the court forms. The outside factors are used inconsistently, and

the lack of a child presence, or weight of the child’s opinion or say in court is not present

unless the parent selects a court appointed expert to evaluate the child. Majority of the

time the child is a minor, and the custody trials are between the two parties or the two

parents. In addition, the lack of evidence of providing proof that the parents provide a

safe environment unless stated by a professional expertise (example; social worker). All

written responses on the court orders were based on what the plaintiff stated and what the

defendant stated. All provided written responses served as the only proof of what was

written on the court documents, and that is what judges use to make their best judgment

for their outcomes/ruling results.

Supporting Data

Data collected from this study provides evidence that judges rely on the courts

forms to base their decision making. The "Motion and Affidavit for an Emergency

hearing" form lists the protocols of evaluation by asking the individual filling out the

form a set of six questions, and this form is for self-representation, and states in one of

the protocols that there is no adequate remedy at law thar can safeguard the child/children

at issue, other than an immediate issuance of a Court Order.

Another form used is the “Civil Domestic Case Information Report,” within this

form the plaintiff is required select and check any boxes identifying the intent to request

for the need for non-custody/visitation. These check boxes are to request a court-

appointed expert; initial conference with the court; mediation by a court-sponsored

settlement program; and others. To request for custody/visitation there are check boxes

for; mediation by a private mediator; evaluation by mental health professional;

appointment of counsel to represent child (not just to waive psychiatric privilege); a

conference with the Court; and others. Within the form of “Complaint for Custody,” it

states the use of Family Law Art (Md. Code, Family Law Art., § 5-203) and those

protocols are used as identifiers such as who is the mother/father; where the children

currently live; and if the minor (child/children) have lived in Maryland for at least six

months. The form ensures to list past locations the minor/s child/children lived. The form

asks for a list of any past cases that the mother/father have been involved. The form asks

to attach recent supporting documentation of the past cases. The form asks to identify if

there's anyone who are not parties to the case, who have physical custody of or claim

rights of legal custody (decision-making authority), physical custody (parenting time), or

visitation (child access) with the minor child(ren).

As the researcher, my conclusion of why the state of Maryland’s internal district

circuit county court policy protocols and implementation efforts haven’t been driven into

compliance, is possibly due to only adhering to the Maryland Family Law. The state of

Maryland does not refer or reference the UCCJEA. The court is likely to adopt any

policies or implement them in their court, however each court may do their protocols

differently. The enforcement of the UCCJEA is not guaranteed because it is not yet at a

federal level.

Discrepant Cases

Discrepant cases are those elements of a study that are unusual or outliers. For

this study, there was one outlier as it relates to the research question. One custody case

had an order regarding minor's eligibility for special immigrant juvenile status. The minor

is under 21 years of age, the courts had jurisdiction in the state of Maryland to make

judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles using the Maryland

Family Law codes. The court decided to keep jurisdiction remaining under that specific

court until the age of 21 or until the conclusion of his immigration case, whichever occurs

earlier. The court placed the minor in sole legal and physical custody of the plaintiff

because the father, the defendant, abandoned the minor shortly after he was born. The

defendant has failed to play a meaningful role in the minor's life and has failed to provide

him with regular financial support. The court considers abandonment of the child by the

defendant. The court states that it was not in the best interest to be returned to his parents

because of his previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence. The

court based this case on the Immigration and Nationality Act. Although my research is

conforming to the UCCJEA, this one dealt with court jurisdiction in Maryland even when

there were immigration matters involved.

The details of the case were interesting, the minor has adjusted well to his life in

the United States which the minor considers his home. The minor feels safe and care

form in the United States and is doing well in school and is nearly fluent in English. In

the other country, the mother and the minor were subject to threats and violence at the

hands of the father. If the minor were to ever return to his country (internationally) the

minor will be at risk. This case touched on majority of the UCCJEA factors listed in

background section of chapter 1 as well as this chapter 4, and the UCCJEA was never

mentioned or referenced.

The primary child caretaker in the other country is currently the mother, who

currently resides in the state of Maryland due to fleeing to escape threats from the

defendant, the father, from violence and harm to both the mother and the child.

Therefore, it is in the best interest to have the minor to remain with the mother in the U.S

under the county she resides in.

This case was treated as an international immigration matter. The plaintiff filed a

“Complaint for Custody” form using the Maryland courts same protocols. The defendant

was served at his home in the other international country. The defendant has not filed any

pleadings despite being served. Defendant is not a member of the military service of the

U.S. (another outside factor) and has not been ordered to report for induction under the

Selective Training and Service Act; is not a member of the Enlisted Reserve Corps who

has been ordered to report for military service. The plaintiff, the mother, orders a request

for default which was sent via first class in the mail to the defendant in the other country.

An affidavit of plaintiff was filled stating the child has been living in Maryland

for approximately one year. The minor is 11 years old. The defendant was physically

abusive to the mother, the plaintiff, physical violence and jealous, and when she was

pregnant, she didn't think it was a safe environment to live with the defendant. She then

moved in with her grandmother. The defendant was not present when the child was born,

claiming that wasn't his child, and therefore didn't want any financial responsibility. The

plaintiff did not receive any financial responsibility from the defendant. There were many

threats of violence made to the plaintiff, and threats to take the child away. The mother,

the plaintiff, fled from the situation to the United States, she was afraid for her life and

son's life being in danger. The mother, states that the father still resides in the other

country and does not have legal status in the U.S. and therefore cannot enlist in the U.S.

military.

Summary

This chapter discussed the results of this qualitative study to answer the research

question regarding the lack of uniformity amongst state family courts when judges

consider the best interest of the child when making custody determinations. Although the

UCCJEA exists, courts vary from state to state, and judges consider a child’s preference

on a case-by-case basis. The gap continues to exist that court judges do not conform to

the UCCJEA or refer to the act itself based on the 10 custody cases analyzed.

Data has demonstrated that although the court may have good intentions through

the implementation of policies and using their own protocols that they do not refer,

reference, adhere or conform to the UCCJEA. The state of Maryland refers to Maryland

Family Law in all their court supporting documents.

The court may use the first UCCJEA factor on jurisdiction and can easily dismiss

the case if the first factor of jurisdiction is not clearly addressed in the court forms. The

outside factors, as shown in Figure 1, are used inconsistently through the cases. The lack

of a child presence, or weight of the child’s opinion or say in court is not present unless

the parent selects a court appointed expert to evaluate the child. All provided written

100

responses served as the only proof of what was written on the court documents, and that

is what judges use to make their best judgment for their outcomes/ruling results.

The state of Maryland does not actively enforce the UCCJEA due to the

UCCJEA not being at a federal mandated level. One can assert that the absence of

uniformity may have future societal impact on how courts create protocols. Adhering and

conforming to laws and subsequently cannot be enforced because states follow rules/laws

within the context of their own states law.

In Chapter 5, I will provide an interpretation of the findings within the context of

the theoretical framework, identify limitations to this study and provide recommendations

for future study as well as discuss implications for positive social change.

101

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The UCCJEA is a uniform state law that governs decision-making about

jurisdiction in interstate custody cases (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges, 2018). The UCCJEA provides an overview on whether a specific state judicial

court has jurisdiction rights to modify or change other interstate court rulings. The

UCCJEA serves as a guide to assist judicial court judges, the professionals that are

involved in court rulings, and parents with the responsibility and measures to protect the

child (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1997). I explored

whether judges and professional experts involved in custody cases use the key factors

from the UCCJEA to make custody determinations and recommendations. The UCCJEA

serves to provide a better understanding of the responsibilities that are required to

implement and give orders from and to the other inter-states (UCCJEA: Guide for Court

Personnel and Judges, 2018).

Although, the UCCJEA exists, there is a problem regarding the lack of uniformity

amongst state family courts in applying and conforming to the UCCJEA. The UCCJEA

specifically aims to protect the best interest of the child when making custody

determinations. However, when conducting my research study, I found that judicial court

judges do not conform to the UCCJEA in the state of Maryland and is not explicitly

mentioned or made aware. I determined that family court judges in Maryland have

applied their own interpretation of the law and have not fully adopted the UCCJEA.

Based on my data analysis, I determined that although the Maryland district

circuit county court may have good intentions on implementing policies, they prefer to

102

use their own protocols based on the state level law. During the case analysis, the court

did not refer, reference, or adhere to conform to the UCCJEA. The UCCJEA was never

mentioned in any of the court documents. Judges based their court final orders, decision

making, or rulings only on Maryland Family Law within all the court supporting

documents.

The reoccurring themes identified through the analysis of data resulted that there

continues to be a lack of uniformity amongst state family courts when conforming to the

UCCJEA. In my research, judges only consider the best interest of the child when making

custody determinations by identifying jurisdiction first before proceeding to continue

with the court trials. Based on my findings, court judges can easily dismiss the case if that

first factor is not clearly addressed in the standardized court forms. The court forms

served as written supporting testimonies of the parties requesting custody. In the forms

and custody ruling judges used their best judgment based on evidentiary support, such the

parties in the cases current financial situation, proof of providing a suitable home

environment, the concerns of the child’s health, education/school, providing child-care,

religion, and travel. In my findings, it is not known if judges already know the UCCJEA

within their job skills and their law knowledge. My findings found that the public was

unaware if the judges had knowledge of the UCCJEA, due to no reference being made in

the outcome of the rulings or the court documents. The case analysis demonstrated that

judges often base their decision making on a case-by-case basis and only refer to their

final orders on what was written in testimony.

103

The results and findings of my research demonstrated in the court documents that

the state of Maryland does not actively enforce the UCCJEA due to the UCCJEA not

being at a federal mandated level. One can assert that the absence of uniformity may have

future societal impact on how courts create protocols. Adhering and conforming to laws

subsequently cannot be enforced because states follow rules/laws within the context of

their own states law. My study contributes to the body of knowledge to share the insight

of current judge protocols and for future researchers to explore UCCJEA conformity in

courts. As a positive societal change, the research results provide the public with

awareness and insight of how judges base their decisions on family custody disputes.

This research may assist for further explorations to discover and conduct similar studies

amongst any other states district or district circuit county courts.

Interpretation of the Findings

The findings of this study confirmed that more research is needed in the areas of

the court conforming or adhering to the UCCJEA and the state’s policymaking process.

This confirms that one of the many gaps in the literature, specifically the lack of a child

presence, or weight of the child’s voice, opinion, or say in court may be a cause for

concern when making custody decisions. My research indicated a gap in relation to

uniformity and conformity to the UCCJEA. Using one of the district circuit county courts

allowed awareness to the public that courts may vary from state to state when judges

consider a child’s preference or the child’s best interest. In my research, I found that in

the Maryland court documents, the only way the court judge can use the child’s voice to

assist them in their decision making is if the parent selects a request for custody or a court

104

appointed expert to evaluate the child. I also found that parental permission is always the

requirement; therefore, judges are only presented with what is written as testimony on the

court forms. My research findings can inform and allow the public to be made aware of

this specific court’s requirement.

The findings further identified that courts have the capacity to reform. The court

policies or protocols follow the Maryland State Family Law, and not the UCCJEA;

however, the research provided a glimpse into the relationship between state laws and

their applicability to reform and conform to the UCCJEA. As an example, courts

reference Maryland Family Law on their court forms, to reform it first starts with court

forms being revised to include and refer to the UCCJEA.

The UCCJEA serves as a guide to assist judicial court judges, professionals that

are involved in court rulings (UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018).

The UCCJEA also provides parents with the responsibility and measures to protect the

child (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1997). Judges and

professionals involved in custody cases may use the key factors mentioned in the

UCCJEA to make custody determinations and for effective implementation of the

UCCJEA in a family court. The UCCJEA serves to provide a better understanding of the

responsibilities that are required to implement and give orders from and to the other inter-

states (UCCJEA: Guide for Court Personnel and Judges, 2018).

For future policy implementations, the state level policymakers may provide

regulation over certain courts to be able to revise standardized court forms. Once the

courts revise their forms, they can provide training to the public, in which they may use

105

on the Maryland website and become more innovative with the current times. For

example, a recommendation is developing virtual video information training for public to

know what to expect in court step by step. Another recommendation is to give a series of

facts and questions or a set of expectations going into court and on how to use the court

forms to obtain better decision outcomes from the judge’s rulings. During the research

findings the court did not give instructions on how to fill out the court forms. The court

forms just listed a series of questions in which the individual was required to fill out.

Courts reforming court forms will hopefully minimize the quick dismissal of cases during

custody court rulings, in which many occurred during the case analysis.

The court administrators may not know that implementing revised court forms

and educating the public on how to use the forms will assist the judges to make better

decision outcomes regarding family custody rulings. Adhering and conforming to laws

subsequently cannot be enforced, only recommended, because states follow rules/laws

within the context of their own states law. Without federally mandating the UCCJEA,

guidance on enforcement is left up to the state level and the courts to decide which

enforcement strategy or protocols are most appropriate and effective (ULC, 2013). One

can assert that the absence of uniformity may have future societal impact on how courts

create protocols. Courts in this research, may adopt, but not necessarily conform to the

UCCJEA.

Current scholarly literature revealed that judges strive to make their rulings based

on the preservation of the child’s best interest in the court (UCCJEA: Guide for Court

Personnel and Judges, 2018). Judges did not reflect any biases known. During the results

106

of the case analysis, the best interest is one of the main factors judges ensured to protect.

In accordance with the literature review in Chapter 2, the findings validated the research,

such as judges considering a child’s preference on a case-by-case basis. Based on my

results, judges used their judgement based on what was written on the court forms and

what was written as testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant statements.

Recommendations for revising these forms can provide the court with higher learning,

and clearer guidance on how those forms can help steer the judge’s decision-making

outcomes for better rulings.

Within the cases analyzed, the judges are governing the solution for the masses,

of all who proceeded with filing a Maryland county court form, Complaint for Custody.

Most of the individuals requesting custody decisions were families undergoing situations

of divorce, separation, attempts and threats of violence, internally fleeing to escape abuse,

and general domestic disputes. Judges did not appear to show any signs of impartial

judgement in their final orders. Donohue (2020) mentioned that the human tendency

toward bias of this kind is particularly worrisome in the context of courts, and

particularly family courts, where the decisions of a few (judges) are governing the

solution set for the diverse masses--and where the decisions of a single fact finder govern

the nature and quality of the interaction between children and their caregivers (Donohue,

2020). In my research findings, it appeared that judges’ determinations separated their

own emotional perspective of a particular situation from a decision, or in other words

provided a moral judgement.

107

My findings supported literature because judges took precedence on matters of

jurisdiction under the Maryland Family law. According to the ULC (2013), the research

aims to provide a much better concept for relief for the parents and children who suffer

from interstate child-custody disputes. Throughout the cases I analyzed the court judges

were quick to award sole legal and physical custody when the individual was in a

situation of endangerment and/or violence, in state and internationally. This assertion

may only be made based upon data collected regarding the cases analyzed in this research

and cannot be interpreted to mean that judges determinations are the same regarding all

courts, since it varies from state to state.

Limitations of the Study

A clear limitation is that this research was conducted in one district circuit county

court state of Maryland, which is not nationally representative; therefore, data and any

inferences or conclusions are relevant to those judges represented in the cases analyzed.

The use of a qualitative approach does not afford the ability to determine causal

relationships; however, the findings are suggestive. The technique of in-depth case

review and analysis took a great deal of time to complete the necessary steps to ensure

data provided enough information to determine the findings and reoccurring themes. Data

was reviewed in its entirety without any introduction of bias by the researcher.

Due to COVID- a global pandemic, data collection was collected from final

dispositions post-COVID, and the demographics of those in the case proceeding trials are

a representation of court administrators, experts, and judges available. These limitations

108

have no bearing on the accuracy of data obtained from the cases. This is confirmed by the

identification of reoccurring themes early in the process of data collection.

Recommendations

The theory that supports this study is the Policy Learning Theory which draws

from lessons learned from past experiences or past protocols to identify the gaps in law or

in policy to make improvements for the future. Recommendations for future research are

based on what was discovered in the literature review, in tandem with data collected in

this study. Policy making decisions are based on human judgment and on gathering

information to assess alternative resolutions for current problems that exist. Policy gaps

are then identified providing the subject a basis to provided best recommended solution.

The recommendation provides future implementation of a new and improved

policy into society or as reform in law. The design and implementation of policies are

constantly adapted in society which are created and learned from past experiences over

time. In these challenges and many others, learning from past mistakes represents a hope

that better policies will develop in the future (Moyson & Scholten et al., 2017). Theories

of policy learning draw from lessons learned to identify the gaps in law or in policy

making by focusing on lessons learned and improvements. Recommendations are

introduced to conduct better practices and protocols that can be utilized in society to

promote change. Therefore, shared experiences shape processes of future policy

formation, however biases still can appear in policy designs.

The research provided three recommendations that states should change or

consider revising. First, changing the language terminology of the law, examples

109

provided are visitation and custody which assist in keeping up with current times as

family dynamics and relationship changes to reduce parenting issues. Second, provide a

more structured approach for codifying factors that can be used to determine the best

interest of a child, and therefore allow judges to follow more narrow guidelines for

making decisions in child custody rulings. Third, develop a screening tool that consist of

a list of criteria which includes characteristics needed to maintain a joint custody

relationship between parents. Knowing the types of tools utilized in courts and the

resources would assist in possible identification of factors to make a successful outcome.

A joint custody criteria list would serve as assistance to parents in determining if

co-parenting is achievable given the circumstances. Parents may not necessarily

understand what is needed for such arrangements. A set list of criteria could help in all

custody determinations. According to the UCCJEA providing protection in the child’s

best interest is the focus of uniformity and conformity in judge’s decision making

protocols. A checklist or a better set list of criteria could help in that discussion, in which

the research would assist in identifying current practices and improvements needed to

standardize protocols on key factors that align with factual based evidence.

With regards to court dynamics or identifying what are current judge’s decision-

making protocols used in courts are not made to the public’s awareness and judges rely

on other professionals. In most cases, courts appoint mental-health experts like

psychologists, psychiatrists, or social workers (Nathan, 2015). Judges rely on

professional evaluators and often disregard or fail to include the tests conducted and end

up providing their own biases. The research now informs the public to better identify that

110

relying on professionals in court rulings specifically in the state of Maryland is important

for better judge decision outcomes. For example, research findings identify that

strengthening the integrity and safeguarding family relationships promote settlement of

disputes, mitigate potential harm to spouses and their children, and secure the maximum

possible involvement of both parents regarding their children's well-being. While the

statute effectively grants this authority to the courts, there are virtually no guidelines that

set forth who the evaluator can be, what qualifications he or she must have, how the

evaluators should conduct their evaluations, and what, if any, methods should be

employed in the evaluation (Nathan, 2015). The research demonstrates that judges look

toward expert opinions when presented in court proceedings and their decision is

influenced or skewed on determining the outcome of the custody decision.

Future recommendations should have courts consider the best interest of a child

by utilizing many distinct factors of reviewing the circumstantial evidence to ensure the

children's welfare and best interest are protected. According to the best interest standard

courts are recommended to apply it during custody decision to consider the future of the

child’s well-being.

The research identifies that court judges must work on a better way to limit the

consequences that are developed from custody court rulings. The research identifies

common patterns when using current protocols in custody trial cases. Replication of this

study in another Maryland county or another state may also provide different results.

111

Implications

Implications for Positive Social Change, Theory, and Practice

Within the theoretical framework of Policy Learning or political learning, wherein

Heclo (1974) argued that people learn in ways of understanding their problem and what

to do about them. Learning occurs at the individual, organizational and societal levels.

Helco (1974) argued that policymaking is both embedded in the past and subject to

continual challenge and adaptation. Heclo (1974) argued that human beings are endowed

with reason and imagination, and are irreducibly developmental, as well as politics.

Therefore, policies and institutions that are created by humans are developed by past

experiences.

The research revealed some of the deficiencies in the policymaking and the

implementation process adhering to the UCCJEA. Current research provides the public

with an insight perspective on how states adhere to policy or law, as well as how the

impact of custodial disputes were being handled in court proceedings. Court documents

demonstrate how the state court judges determine custodial case outcomes. Future

researchers may use this research to assist with how the policy making process is used in

county courts and to investigate how cases are analyzed in Maryland. Applying the policy

learning theory on current court protocols would help to consider how states can reform

under the UCCJEA.

The research identified similar themes in other cases in court dynamics on

whether family district circuit county court judges adhere and conform to laws that are

implemented. It assists policy makers on how judges interpret the law, and how judges

112

implement an act and apply the protocol in the court, all the while keeping the best

interest and protection of child(ren) by having the supporting testimony justify a healthy,

sustainable environment.

Currently, judges are only following the state law and relying on court

administrators to develop court forms. Learning from past experiences and or real-life

cases assist court judges to make better decisions/outcomes in custody rulings.

Recommendation for further research would be to interview court judges directly. The

interview questions will ask judges if they rely on court administrators to provide them

with the reference to the laws on the court forms, and if they knowingly adhere to the

UCCJEA when making their final determinations.

Study results contribute to positive social change by providing context from a

judge’s perspective and an explanation for why it is important for courts to reform and

develop their own policies by adhering or conforming to the UCCJEA. It provides an

opportunity for collaboration to develop standard enforcement mechanisms across the

court system. In addition, this study has provided information about the policymaking

process and a unique opportunity to examine how policy making is implemented in court

and its impact through the lens of policy learning. My research serves as a model for

larger studies involving court protocols and dynamics in which judges base their

decisions on.

The social change implication of this study for the practice of public policy is the

benefit of having a model that can be translated to different areas, such as other state

courts or state county courts, thus, creating a paradigm for policymaking that is

113

translatable and includes the consideration and sustainability of justice as the core

principle in society.

Conclusion

According to the ULC (2013) the UCCJEA has amendments that have not yet

been federally implemented and is still in draft status as of 2013. The UCCJEA is a state

law that deals more on jurisdiction distinctions among states within the United States of

America. It identifies an interstate problem in which finalizing the law at the federal level

would be better suited for complying with state uniformity.

Although another county court or state may have different results, this study

provided that the enforcement of the UCCJEA is not guaranteed because it is not yet at a

federal level. The research demonstrated results that the state of Maryland and court

judges do not refer or reference the UCCJEA. The state of Maryland’s internal district

circuit county court policy protocols and implementation efforts have not been complied

with because it only adheres to the state of Maryland Family Law. The research indicates

that family court judges are not currently adhering to the UCCJEA in a family district

circuit county court in the state of Maryland.

Judge Decision Protocols Conforming to the Uniform Child Custody.

Students also viewed