Lawyers who used to handle the occasional trust or will dispute are finding themselves in Orphans’ Court more and more these days. For some, what was once a “spinoff” has turned into their main practice area.

On models of representation for attorneys for children involved in the Juvenile Court and Family Court in Maryland.

A mother’s successful appeal of an order that placed her two daughters in foster care did not lead to her reunification with them, as the juvenile court judge validly found the children had developed a loving and lasting bond with their foster parents, Maryland’s top court has held.

In a battle between a teacher’s ex-wife and his widow over his pension benefits, the Court of Special Appeals has ruled for the ex.

Parents cannot waive their children’s right to support, even when their separation agreement includes such a waiver and a non-modifiability clause, the Court of Special Appeals has held.

Judges can permanently strip parents of their rights to their children even while the parents are appealing an order in the underlying foster-care case, Maryland’s top court ruled July 16.

Working as a child advocate in the child welfare system, one encounters numerous young people, ranging from 13 to 17 years of age, who enter the juvenile justice system due to behaviors that would be considered criminal in nature if committed by adults. The real question is, how responsible are these teens for the behaviors they display — and how can the system effectively intervene before the negative behaviors start?

Reaction to an appellate decision that barred direct contact between a domestic violence victim and her abuser highlights a sharp divide on whether such intervention protects victims or deters them from reporting abuse.

The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge, conducting an interview of the parties’ daughter or granting an above-guidelines award of child support in the same amount the child’s mother sought, the Court of Special Appeals has held.

A trust in favor of a mentally impaired 19-year-old cannot be considered a “means of subsistence” under the destitute adult child statute, as long as she has no access to the funds, the Court of Special Appeals has held.