IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND __________________________________ Ariel Rosita King Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Herbert Pfeiffer Respondent-Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________
Petition for Writ of Certiorari Seeking Review of Court of Special Appeals, Case No. 1007, Sept. Term, 2009, Opinion, Aug. 13, 2010 (Opinion) Order Denying Reconsideration of Opinion, October 28, 2010, Mandate, October 28, 2010 Lower Circuit Court Action: King v. Pfeiffer, Case No. 70620FL, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, TPO Order Setting FPO Hearing for June 9, 2008 (Judge Boynton), June 2, 2008; Order Quashing TPO (Judge Craven), June 5, 2008 (mailed June 9, 2008); Order Denying Motion to Vacate June 5, 2008 Order (Judge Craven), (June 1, 2009) [Copies of All Opinions and Orders found in Petition Attachments (Pet.Att.- 6 through 33)]

Case No. ______

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI This case presents to this Court an opportunity to correct serious damage to the integrity of the statutorily established Temporary Protective Order (TPO) regime of Marylands Domestic Violence Statutes caused by the erroneous decisions below. MD FL 4-501, et. seq. The lower court decisions legitimize the actions of one party -- prior to the Full Protective Order (FPO) hearing date to cause a Duty Judge to prematurely vacate on an ex parte basis a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) issued by another Circuit Court a) without adequate notice, b) without any notice from the Court, c)

without opportunity for the pro se litigant to obtain counsel (in this case from House of Ruth), d) without completion of the investigation initiated by the TPO, e) before the court-set FPO hearing date of June 9, 2008, and f) based on the proffers of opposing counsel for which said counsel clearly had no evidence or first hand knowledge and which later were established to be false. If allowed to stand, the lower court decisions establish that parties cannot rely upon the courts to fully enforce a TPO during the sensitive period between the TPO hearing and the courtset FPO hearing, as established by the Maryland domestic violence statutes. Nor can parties be assured that a fair FPO hearing will be held on the date-certain set forth in the TPO for which both parties may adequately prepare, obtain counsel, and present evidence as clearly stated by the TPO. As with Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 674 A.2d 951 (1996), and Katsenelenbogen, 365 Md. 122, 775 A.2d 1249 (2001), the line of lower court decisions seriously weakens the State's effort to respond aggressively to incidents of violence in the home and frustrat[es] the important objectives of the State's domestic violence law. Id. The fact that the Court of Special Appeals decision is unreported does

not diminish its effects, because whether published or unpublished the Duty Circuit Courts actions below will remain standing absent corrective action by this Court of Appeals, and the lower courts, including the ones involved here, will view the outcome as legitimate and proper for guiding future cases. Unfortunately, re-

view is not practical for most lower court TPO and FPO actions, and thus, clear guidance from this Court in these rare instances is critical to avoid future problems. PARTIES

Petitioner is Dr. Ariel Rosita King (Petitioner, Appellant, Plaintiff, Wife, and Mother) who, with the advice and aid of the Montgomery County Abused Persons Program (APP), sought and received TPO protection for both herself and her child on June 2, 2008. [See, TPO, Pet.Att- 6, and -69] At the time, Wife/Mother lived in Montgomery County where her daughter. ALM attended the German School in Potomac Maryland, and ALM stayed with her Mother in Maryland three out of four weekends and, typically four out of seven days per week. Wife/Mother specializes in International Health Policy, and, at the time of the TPO, ran the Ariel Foundation International, a small foundation that helps children throughout the world. Wife/Mother is an American citizen who currently lives in Germany. Respondent is Dr. Michael Herbert Pfeiffer (Respondent, Appellee, and Defendant, Husband, and Father) against whom the TPO protection was sought for his wife, Dr. Ariel Rosita King, and their then five-year-old daughter, ALM. Dr. Pfeiffer is a German citizen living in the US on a residency visa (expiring in 2012).. At the time of the issuance of the TPO, ALM stayed with her Father, Dr. Pfeiffer, in his one bedroom walkup apartment in Washington DC, for days
3

when she was not staying with Wife/Mother in Maryland. At the time of the issuance of the TPO, Dr. Pfeiffer had been on staff at a number of major hospitals in the Washington DC area, including Georgetown University Hospital. Dr. Pfeiffer continues to live in that one bedroom walkup apartment in Washington, DC with ALM. QUESTIONS PRESENTED After consulting with the Montgomery County APP about the breakdown of the child at school after a weekend visit with her Father, Petitioner Dr. Ariel King, applied pro se for a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) on June 2, 2009. APP advised that Wife/Mother seek a TPO and it provided assistance in the application process. [See, APP Notes, Pet.Att.- 69] A TPO for protection of both the pro se Wife/Mother (stalking) and her daughter (Statutory Abuse of a Child (physical, sexual)) was issued after a one-hour hearing before Judge Boynton of the Montgomery County Circuit Court on June 2, 2008. In the hearing, Judge Boynton had examined the Wife/Mother accompanied by her daughter. Judge Boyntons TPO also initiated an investigation by Montgomery County Child Protection Services (DSS) into suspected abuse and neglect by ALMs Husband/Father Dr. Pfeiffer. Consistent with Marylands Domestic Violence statutory protection scheme, the TPO temporarily shifted custody of the then-five-year-old child to pro se Wife/Mother. The TPO contained the standard explicit directives, including that
4

all parties needed to a) obtain counsel, b) gather evidence and witnesses to present, and c) fully prepare for a Full Protective Order (FPO) Hearing set for June 9, 2008. [TPO Notice to All Parties, Pet.Att.- 6, 9] Montgomery County APP then referred pro se Wife to the House of Ruth (HOR) to obtain legal counsel for the June 9 FPO hearing [Pet.Att.- 69]. During the critical time between the June 2, 2008 TPO hearing and its courtscheduled June 9, 2008 FPO hearing, the Husband/Fathers counsel, -- without providing adequate notice to, or consultation with, the pro se wife, or the House of Ruth -- maneuvered the Duty Judge for June 5, 2008, Judge Craven, to hold an unscheduled ex parte hearing on Husband/Fathers Motion to Quash the TPO. Duty Judge Cravens court did not issue a notice of said hearing, nor place said hearing on its schedule. During that June 5, 2008 ex parte hearing, Duty Judge Craven vacated Judge Boyntons June 2, 2008 TPO based solely on false proffers of Husbands counsel concerning what he alleged was stated by the pro se wife at the June 2, 2008 TPO hearing. However, said Husbands Counsel was neither present at the June 2, 2008 hearing, nor did he present a transcript or other evidence of what was stated at that June 2, 2008 hearing. Petitioners later-filed Motion to Vacate the June 5, 2008 Order Quashing the TPO was denied, and then appealed. The questions presented are: 1. Was it an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process and equal protection for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) issued by one Circuit
5

Court Judge on June 2, 2008, to be quashed by another Duty Circuit Court Judge in an unscheduled, ex parte hearing on June 5, 2008, , a. without consultation with the original Judge (who had ordered the TPO who had received testimony from and observed both the wife and child at the original TPO hearing on June 2, 2008), b. without adequate or accurate notice, c. without notice from the Court, d. without a scheduled hearing, e. without opportunity for the pro se litigant to obtain counsel (in this case from House of Ruth), to represent the Wife/Mother and child, f. without the results of a completed child abuse investigation mandated by the TPO for suspected child physical and sexual abuse, g. before the court-set FPO hearing date of June 9, 2008, and/or h. based on hearsay proffers of husbands counsel for which said counsel had no evidence or first-hand knowledge. 2. Was it an abuse of discretion for the Second (Duty) Circuit Court Judge to deny a Motion to Vacate his June 5, 2008 Order Quashing the June 5, 2008 TPO in light of the fraud, mistake and irregularities surrounding entry of that June 5, 2008 Order. 3. Was it error for the Court of Special Appeals to summarily deny a Motion for Reconsideration seeking to correct factual errors in its Opinion below where documentation was presented that clearly demonstrated, a. the Opinion set forth erroneous facts are not supported by any findings by the Circuit Court below, c. the Opinion set forth erroneous facts are clearly contradicted by the record in the Circuit Court below.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PARTIES ........................................................................................................................... 3 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................................................................ 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 7 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ 7 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ...................................................................................... 8 ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION ............................................................... 13
The DV Protection Scheme Undermined By Allowing Such Cases to Stand ........................... 14 Irregularity, Mistake, and Fraud Require Vacating the Courts Orders ...................................... 16 The Motions to Vacate and Appeals Were Timely and Proper ...................................................... 20 The Court of Special Appeals Opinion Was Erroneous In that It Relies On Numerous Errors of Fact That Have No Support In the Record ............................................................................................. 21 These DV Matters Require Clarification By The Court of Appeals ...................................... 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF ATTACHMENT (Pet.Att.-____) ............................... 25 ATTACHMENTS (Pet.Att.- ___)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES

Coburn v. Coburn, 342 Md. 244, 674 A.2d 951 (1996) ...................................................... 2, 14, 23 In re. Katherine C., 890 A.2d 295, 390 Md. 554 (2006) ........................................................ 16, 17 Katsenelenbogen v. Katsenelenbogen, 365 Md. 122, 775 A.2d 1249 (2001) ..................... 2, 15, 23 Phillips v. Venker, 557 A.2d 1338 (1989) ............................................................................. 16, 17

STATUTES
MD FL 9.5-204 ..................................................................................................................... 17, 19 MD FL 4-501, et. seq .......................................................................................................... 1, 8, 16 MD FL 9-305 .............................................................................................................................. 10

RULES
MD Crt. Rule 16-102 ............................................................................................................ 16, 18

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Fifth and Fourteen Amendment .................................................................................................... 11

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Petitioner, Dr. Ariel Rosita King, requests that this Court reverse the line of decisions of Duty Judge Craven beginning with his June 5, 2008 Order Quashing of the June 2, 2008 TPO. The TPO, issued by Judge Boynton on June 2, 2008, was in all ways consistent with the Domestic Violence protection statutes of Maryland and their purpose: 1) protect both pro se Wife/Mother from stalking and their child until the FPO hearing set for June 9, 2008, 2) cause an investigation of Judge Boyntons concerns of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and domestic violence, and 3) set a Full Protective Order (FPO) hearing for June 9, 2008 with the presentation of evidence and witnesses, assisted by counsel. MD FL 4-501, et. seq., [TPO Notice to All Parties, Pet.Att.- 6] The line of erroneous decisions occurred because Husband/Father, through counsel, maneuvered Judge Craven to hold an unscheduled1 ex parte hearing on June 5, 2008, without adequate notice, evidence to support the courts conclusions, without pro se Wife/Mother or her child present, without the results of a full child protection agency abuse investigation, and without affording pro se Wife/Mother and child adequate time to obtain counsel from the House of Ruth (HOR) and

Calls to the Court clerk and Judge Cravens chambers on the morning of June 5, 2008 revealed that neither the Court clerk or Judge Cravens chambers was aware of any scheduled hearing in the TPO case for that day. This lack of any scheduled hearing is evidenced that no entry was placed in the docket noticing or otherwise noting any scheduled hearing for June 5, 2008 [Pet.Att.-1], and that the notice allegedly provided by Husband only stated the hearing was on or about Thursday at 11 am, No date was provided in the Husbands notice for the hearing, nor was a particular time set for hearing or whether evidence would be taken. [Pet. Att.- 117]
1

otherwise prepare for a hearing. [See, APP Notes, Pet.Att-69]

Because the un-

scheduled ex parte hearing of Duty Judge Craven occurred before the June 9, 2008 FPO hearing date set by the TPO, it necessarily did not benefit from the results of Judge Boyntons TPO-initiated investigation of sexual and physical abuse about which Judge Boynton had concerns. It also did not benefit from the uncontroverted evidence considered by Judge Boynton in issuing his June 2, 2008 TPO, including evidence the child was sleeping with Father (Montgomery County Treehouse Forensic Interview of the Child [Pet.Att.- 86-87]), a breakdown of the child earlier that day [Pet.Att.-86-87], physical abuse [Pet.Att.- 90-91], CPS having referred the child to the Treehouse program for sexual abuse [Pet.Att.-91], and the child now suffering from a potentially fatal rare Severe Chronic Neutropenia (low immunity or Low ANC) of unknown cause. [Pet.Att.- 92-94]. Said condition arose after the child began regularly sleeping at Husbands one bedroom apartment in the big bed in Washington DC. [Forensic Interview, Pet.Att.-77-78]. The day after achieving the premature quashing of the TPO order on June 5, 2008, the Husband used that result to maneuver a Virginia court to award full custody of the child in a final order, and place a prohibition on the childs contact with the Mother. This was achieved, again in an ex parte hearing in Virginia, based solely on Husbands counsel proffers of what occurred in the Maryland

TPO hearing the day before.2 The Husband then went back to the Maryland seeking to have Wife/Mother arrested for non-parental abduction of a child under 12. [See, Arrest Warrant, Pet.Att.-72 (alleging Fathers Counsel to be childs custodian)] Wife/Mother was arrested at the childs bedside at the hematology/oncology ward at Montefiore Childrens Hospital in New York, where Wife/Mother had taken the child to have the rare life-threatening Severe Chronic Neutropenia thoroughly evaluated without the historical interference by her Husband with local physicians Husband was a member of the medical staff of numerous hospitals in the Washington DC area. That arrest -- based on an improper charge of interstate non-parental abduction of a child under 12 (carrying a 20 year sentence)3,-- caused the Wife/Mother to be held without bond, for a month at Rikers Island prison, while awaiting extradition to Maryland. During that period deadlines expired for appeal and routine reconsideration of Judge Cravens June 5, 2008 Order.4 On April 6, 2009, after entry of her plea for taking her child to New York

This was not in the best interests of the child given that the Wife/Mother was the primary caregiver for the first five years of her childs life without any incident or findings that she was an inadequate parent to the child. In fact, the only court evaluation and recommendation that was ever issued by a court official recommended that Wife/Mother receive physical custody of their daughter. [See, Nov.10, 2007 Recommendation of the Virginia Court Evaluator, found at Supplemental Appendix For Reply Brief For Appellant, at King-27, filed January 26, 2010.] 3 Interstate parental abduction of a child for less then 30 days carries a maximum of only 30 days. MD FL 9-305. 4 The arrest also had the effect of aborting the independent evaluation of ALM at Montefiore Childrens Hospital, where her Absolute Neutrophil Count (ANC) had been measured as low was 120 (less than 5% of normal immunity)
2

10

without authority,5 and review of disclosures in that case of the States extensive discovery, Wife/Mother immediately filed, pro se, a Motion to Vacate Judge Cravens June 5, 2008 Order. See, Petitioners Motion to Vacate, Case 70620FL,

filed April 6, 2009. Through extensive documentation, Petitioners Motion to Vacate established that Judge Cravens June 5, 2008 Order was the result of fraud, mistake, and irregularity. Petitioners Motion to Vacate further demonstrated that the issues, even if moot, required vacating the June 5, 2008 decision to avoid bad precedent for other domestic violence victims, mostly women and children, in the future. The Petition also argued also that she and their childs rights to due process and equal protection were violated by the Courts June 5, 2008 decision. [See, e.g., Fifth and Fourteen Amendment of US Constitution] While Judge Craven initially reopened the case, he summarily dismissed the Petitioners Motion to Vacate without holding a hearing in an Order, entered on June 1, 2009). [Pet.Att.- 18] Appeal to the Court of Special Appeals: Wife/Mother, filing pro se, sought timely appeal of the line of decisions leading to Judge Cravens June 1, 2009 Order. [See, Appellants Brief, filed Dec. 10, 2009, and Reply Brief, filed

Jan. 26, 2010, Court of Special Appeals, Case No. 1007, September Term 2009]. In her Brief and Reply, Wife/Mother explained why Judge Cravens Orders

5 On

April 6, 2009, after being denied her statutory defenses and denied to present her expert witnesses, the Wife pled guilty to parental abduction admitting only that she took her young daughter out of Maryland to another state, that state being New York, without the proper authority. [April 6, 2008 Transcript of Case 131333 at pp. 151-154, attached hereto as Pet.App.- 143-146] The plea arrangement provided for no jail time and no probation.

11

should, at a minimum, be vacated, and why her appeal was timely. Petitioner also argued that even if moot, that the Court of Special Appeals should correct the unprecedented error by Judge Cravens Court so as to clearly establish that future domestic violence victims who successfully obtain a TPO will be assured that all of the courts of Maryland will honor that original TPO Courts findings, adhere to its protection for the period leading to the FPO, follow through with a completed investigations, hold a proper FPO hearing held at the time and place set by the original Judges TPO, provide adequate notice and time to prepare and obtain counsel, and assure proper and complete presentation of any investigation ordered. Court of Special Appeals Denies the Appeal As Untimely and Ignores the Policy Issues: On August 13, 2010, the Court of Special Appeals issued an unreported eleven page Opinion. [Pet.Att.- 19]. The Opinions first nine pages

set forth an erroneous factual background that was mostly unsupported by, and conflicted with, the record below. The Opinions last two pages contained summary discussion. In that summary discussion, the Court of Special Appeals summarily denied the appeal because it argued that no fraud, mistake or irregularity had occurred based on its erroneous facts. The Court of Appeals repeated

Judge Cravens entire reasoning that, on its face, was clearly erroneous: "I find she knows about this, has chosen not to be here and there is reason to believe that the testimony given to Judge Boynton a few days ago is false."

12

The Court of Special Appeals ignored the defects in the notice, inconsistencies with the TPOs instructions, that Duty Judge Craven had not consulted Judge Boynton, that he had not read the TPO hearing transcript, and that he had relied only on clearly uninformed false proffers regarding the June 2, 2008 hearing, and that Duty Judges are not authorized to dispose of such matters. On September 13, 2010, Wife/Mother filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court of Special Appeals Opinion seeking: 1) correction of the Opinions many factual errors, and 2) revision of the determination based on the corrected facts. [See, Motion for Reconsideration, attached hereto at Pet.Att.- 34, et. Seq. Court of Special Appeals Denies Reconsideration of both the Erro- neous Facts and the Resulting Erroneous Determination: On October 28, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued a summary order denying, without any reasoning, Wife/Mothers Motion for Reconsideration of both the erroneous facts in its August 13, 2010 opinion and the determination based on those facts. [Pet.Att.- 31] A mandate was issued October 28, 2010, and mailed October 29, 2010. [Pet.Att.32] This Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeks review of the decisions below. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

This case has created a major fault line in Marylands well-established scheme for domestic violence protection.
13

"The purpose of the domestic abuse statute is to protect and aid victims of domestic abuse by providing an immediate and effective' remedy. The statute provides for a wide variety and scope of available remedies designed to separate the parties and avoid future abuse. Thus, the primary goals of the statute are preventive, protective and remedial, not punitive. The legislature did not design the statute as punishment for past conduct; it was instead intended to prevent further harm to the victim." - Coburn, 342 Md. at 250, 674 A.2d at 954-955 (1996) Statistics have shown that the most vulnerable time for domestic violence victims is immediately following the issuance of a temporary protective order, Chief Deputy Popkin of Montgomery County Sheriffs Office [Press Release, Temporary Protective Orders to be Heard via Video in Montgomery County (Sept. 28, 2009), attached hereto at Pet.Att.- 75-76] The DV Protection Scheme Undermined By Allowing Such Cases to Stand The Maryland Domestic Violence protection scheme is severely undermined if a suspected abuser can easily manipulate the legal process by going before a Duty Judge to have a TPO quashed -- at this most vulnerable time before the courtscheduled FPO -- in an ex parte unscheduled hearing where: a) inadequate and defective notice of said hearing is provided to the pro se victims, b) no courtscheduled hearing or associated official notice to the pro se victims, c) no opportunity for the pro se victims to obtain counsel for the unscheduled hearing, d) no opportunity for the pro se victims to prepare for said hearing, e) no attempt to schedule said unscheduled hearing at a time convenient to the pro se victim, and f) aborting the TPO-mandated child abuse investigation and the proper presentation

14

of its results at a court-scheduled FPO. It was during that most vulnerable time that Judge Craven vacated the TPO protections put in place for seven days by Judge Boynton for both Petitioner and her child. Judge Cravens June 5, 2008 Order is the very antithesis to the purpose of the domestic violence protection statutes of Maryland. Judge Craven relied solely upon clearly baseless proffers of Husbands attorney concerning what that attorney thought was said at a TPO hearing neither he nor his client attended, nor one for which he could present a transcript to support his delusional claims. The main focus of the Fathers main argument in his Motion to Quash the June 2, 2008 TPO was a red herring, namely that a custody proceeding was pending in Virginia at the time. However, said proceeding was disclosed in the June 2, 2008 TPO hearing before Judge Boynton [Pet.Att.- 87-88], and does not undermine Marylands jurisdiction to issue a TPO to protect victims within its borders as was done here. A TPO is by its nature, a temporary relief to afford shortterm protection. As this court recognized in Katsenelenbogen, 365 Md. 122, 775 A.2d 1249 (2001), the issue of whether a protective order should be issued cannot be driven by any speculative long-term effect such TPO might have on a collateral custody proceeding. The protective orders main purpose is to provide temporary protection of adult and child victims physically within Maryland, and it does not resolve or interfere with the merits of any long-term custody proceeding.

15

It is well established that if DV victims are physically in Maryland, then Maryland has jurisdiction to enter a TPO to protect said victims. [MD FL 4-501, and 4-505, also, MD Code FL 9.5-204] In this case, both victims were in

Maryland, and the alleged violence against both victims took place, at least in part, in Maryland. Neither victim here should have needed to go, nor could have gone

to Virginia (which lacked the necessary jurisdiction) for a TPO for actions that did not take place in Virginia and where none of the partys resided for over 8 months. Irregularity, Mistake, and Fraud Require Vacating the Courts Orders

As set forth in the Wifes Motion for Reconsideration, when its Opinions factual errors are corrected to accurately reflect the record, the Court of Special Appeals should have concluded that Judge Craven was required to vacate his June 5, 2008 Order because it is incontrovertible: 1) that there was irregularity and mistake by holding an unscheduled ex parte June 5, 2008 hearing before a Duty Judge -- in violation of constitutional due process and the law of Maryland6 -- due to lack of adequate notice for the actions taken, which exceeded a Duty Judge's primary responsibilities. See, MD Crt. Rule 16-102. This Court Of Appeals found lack of adequate meaningful notice involves more than simply knowing the proposed place and time of a hearing. Inadequate notice can still exist even where both party appear at the hearing:

6

In re. Katherine C., 890 A.2d 295 at 307, 390 Md. 554 (2006) (quoting Phillips v. Venker, 557 A.2d 1338 at 1343, 316 Md. 212 (1989))

16

It is axiomatic that they were entitled to adequate notice of the time, place, and nature of that hearing, so that they could adequately prepare. Assuming, as the parties here have agreed, that a telephone conference satisfied the requirement of an oral hearing in this case, notice of that hearing, if indeed it can be said that any notice was given, was insufficient. Counsel for the plaintiffs was not given any meaningful opportunity to review his file, collect his thoughts, or otherwise prepare for oral argument. That he was able to participate in some fashion in the argument the trial judge insisted be held does not suggest that he was able to participate effectively. Effective argument of a motion for [the dispositive] summary judgment in this type of case requires not only that the attorney be conversant with the applicable case law, but that he also have fresh in mind the critical areas of deposition testimony previously given by each witness. The stakes were high, and the need for adequate preparation was apparent. The absence of adequate notice effectively deprived the plaintiffs of the hearing guaranteed them by the rule. We shall vacate the judgment below and remand the case so that the parties may be afforded a hearing after adequate notice. - (emphasis added, citations omitted) Phillips v. Venker, at 1343 (1989) (quoted in In re. Katherine C., at 307) 2) that it was irregularity at the unscheduled ex parte June 5, 2008 hearing to quash the entire TPO without regard to its multiple purposes, which were: 1) protection of the Wife/Mother from stalking by the Husband/Father, 2) the "statutory abuse of the child (Physical, Sexual), and 3) completion of a DSS (CPS) child abuse investigation. The Maryland UCCJEA (MD Code FL 9.5-204) allows for temporary jurisdiction to protect a child even if a custody proceeding is pending elsewhere. With regard to the TPO protections for the Wife and her child, the existence of a custody proceeding in Virginia, thus, had no bearing on the jurisdiction or merits of a TPO issued to protect the child in Maryland, and certainly could not
17

have affected jurisdiction with regard to protecting the Wife in Maryland. . 3) that it was irregularity for a Duty Judge Craven to attempt to prematurely hold an unscheduled FPO hearing (which was scheduled by the court for June 9, 2008) at the ex parte June 5, 2008 hearing, where he heard, without notice, hearsay testimonial evidence from two CPS workers who appeared without subpoena or court order, and who conceded they received the case only one day before, and testified that their investigation was far from complete (not started) including not having interviewed the Husband/Father, the childs teachers (who witnessed the breakdown), nor were aware of the Forensic Interviews of the Treehouse and the childs disclosures therein, nor considered the role of the sudden onset of Severe Chronic Neutropenia (which can be psychotropic drug induced). Judge Boyntons court set hearing date of June 9, 2008 is required by statute. Judge Cravens action were clearly not in conformance with MD Crt. Rule 16-102. On June 5, 2008, Duty Judge Craven should have insisted that the Husband/Father raise his Motion to Quash issues at the June 9, 2008 trial set by the TPO, or, if required sooner, before Judge Boynton, who had seen and interviewed both the wife and their child, and then issued the TPO for their protection. Only Judge Boynton had first-hand knowledge of the testimony and history of the TPO. 4) that it was irregularity for the Duty Judge's June 5, 2008 Order to quash the TPO on the basis that "he had reason to believe that the testimony given [at

18

the June 2, 2008 hearing] to Judge Boynton a few days ago is false" or because there was a custody proceeding in Virginia. As to the former, no party in that June 5, 2008 hearing room, including the Duty Judge Craven, had any knowledge of the testimony that had been given on June 2, 2008, including any testimony with regard to the custody proceeding in Virginia. As to the later, Judge Craven improperly disregarded the UCCJEAs provision that clearly enabled Judge Boyntons TPO for the child under the Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction of MD FL Code 9.5-204. Upon entry of the emergency order, the UCCJEA calls for a conference between the courts to "resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the child, and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order." MD FL Code 9.5-204. Duty Judge Craven failed to do so. 5) that there was extrinsic fraud arising from a) the Husband/Father's attorney's failure to provide adequate or accurate notice of a hearing he set, b) Husband/Fathers counsels failure to provide notice that he intended to call witnesses, c) Husband/Fathers counsels failure to provide notice of what witnesses he intended to call, and d) Husband/Fathers counsels false proffers to the Judge Cravens Court at the June 5, 2008 hearing. The hearing on June 5, 2008 was the result of a unilateral, defective and untimely "notice" by the Husband/Father's attorney in his attempt to abort the TPO-ordered CPS investigation and preempt the TPO ordered June 9, 2008 FPO trial. His June 4, 2008 "notice" to bring his motion

19

to quash the TPO before the Duty Judge only stated that he would "move to vacate" on or after "Thursday" at 11am (with no specified date). See, Motion for Reconsideration, Appendix at APP-55 [Pet.Att.- 117]. No mention of an evidentiary hearing was contained in said notice. There was no hearing set by the Court. There was no coordination as to date and time with pro se Wife. The June 4, 2008 Husband/Fathers "notice" did not disclose his intent to call Ms. Wood, or the CPS workers Ms. Catron, or Ms. Hoffman, or what evidence he intended to present or if any would be taken. The "notice" of Husband/Father also lacked proper content for a notice for an FPO trial, specifically that the pro se Wife/Mother should obtain an attorney and be prepared for the presentation of evidence and present witnesses. Said Husband/Fathers fraud was relied upon by Duty Judge Craven and, in turn, caused him to quash a TPOs protections for a mother and her child, preempted a scheduled evidentiary trial set for June 9, 2008, and aborted a child abuse investigation. Said Husband/Father's fraud also prevented any opportunity for pro

se Wife/Mother to adequately prepare and present her case at either the unscheduled hearing on June 5, or the scheduled June 9, 2008 FPO hearing it preempted. The Motions to Vacate and Appeals Were Timely and Proper

Wife/Mother's Motion to Vacate the June 5, 2008 Order, and subsequent appeal of its summary denial, were timely and proper because: 1) Wife/Mother, who was pro se, was unable to timely appeal the original June 5, 2008 Duty Judge's Or20

der because of Husbands causing her to be erroneously charged and held in New York's Rikers prison without bond, and only released after the deadline for appeal or reconsideration; and 2) that much of the "fraud, mistake, and irregularity" was uncovered in the States disclosures in Petitioner's criminal case's during the time leading up to her April 5, 2009 plea for taking "her young daughter out of Maryland to another state, that state being New York, without the proper authority." The Court of Special Appeals Opinion Was Erroneous In that It Relies On Numerous Errors of Fact That Have No Support In the Record On September 13, 2010, Wife/Mother filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Opinion, through counsel, seeking to have numerous factual errors corrected in the extensive (and mostly irrelevant) statement of facts of the Opinion. That reconsideration was summarily denied without explanation, even though the extensive errors had been identified and extensively documented, including, but not limited to, the following material errors and omissions: a) the Opinion mistakenly identified that a hearing was set June 5, 2008, when, in fact, the only hearing set by the court was by Judge Boynton for June 9, 2008 at 9:30, b) the Opinion implied that Wife/Mother had counsel, when in fact she was pro se, and not represented by counsel in either Maryland or Virginia on June 5, 2008, and was in the process of securing counsel from House of Ruth for June 9, 2008 upon referral by APP, c) the Opinion misstated the TPOs purpose as being custody, when in fact its primary purpose was, by its own words, protection of the Wife/Mother from stalking and the child from abuse (physical/sexual),
21

d) the Opinion failed to recognize the role of the Husband/Fathers attorney false proffers at the June 5, 2008 hearing, their obvious inconsistencies with the June 2, 2008 transcript, along with the TPO application, and their role in quashing the TPO that prevented the Wife/Mother from presenting her case at the FPO. Furthermore, that the TPO application and testimony clearly showed that Judge Boynton was fully aware of the Virginia proceeding and prior Maryland court case history, e) the Opinion inaccurately fails to recognize that the June 2, 2008 transcript showed that the Wife/Mother answered all of Judge Boyntons questions in the June 2, 2008 hearing, with her daughter present, f) the Opinion failed to recognize that DutyJudge Craven did not have the June 2, 2008 transcript before him when he stated he believed the Wife/Mother has made false statements in that June 2, 2008 hearing, g) The Opinion failed to recognize the obvious defects in the Husband/Father notice. That notice was alleged to have been provided the day before the June 5, 2008 hearing, and that notice was ambiguous in that it did not state a date for the hearing, made no mention of an evidence or witnesses being presented, and it did not mention that it would take the place of the June 9, 2008 FPO set by the Court in the TPO. h) the Opinion makes misstates the significance of any notice being given by the CPS workers to the Wife/Mother, when the facts are clear that if such notice was given it could not have occurred before the morning of the June 5, 2008 hearing, which was clearly inadequate notice for such a dispositive proceeding, under the law of this Court, i) the Opinion inaccurately characterizes the admitted hearsay nature of CPSs Hoffmans testimony before Judge Craven with regard to whether abuse or neglect had occurred, that CPSs Catron did not in fact -- testify as to abuse or neglect, and that the CPS workers acknowledged that their investigation was not complete, and that they had not interviewed the Husband/Father which they had intended to do that afternoon (when the June 5, 2008 hearing was taking place), j) the Opinion also incorrectly identifies Mr. Morris as Wife/Mothers Virginia counsel (which he is not), and also makes claims as fact the con22

tents of attorney-client communications between Mr. Morris with the Wife/Mother after the June 5, 2008 hearing. Had such communications actually occurred they would be attorney-client privileged and would not have been disclosed to the Court. Furthermore, there is no evidence anywhere in the record regarding said attorney-client communications referred to in the Opinion, k) the Opinion assumes the Wife/Mother knew about the outcome of the June 5, 2008 Order on that date, but provides no credible basis for such a suggestion. In fact, the June 5, 2008 Order was not dispatched by mail from the Court until June 9, 2008 making any claims of notice to the Wife/Mother of the Orders contents before that date speculative, at best, l) the Opinion misstates the facts supporting Wife/Mothers guilty plea, as she specifically rejected the States facts, and only pleaded to the facts that she took her young daughter out of Maryland to another state, that state being New York, without the proper authority. The Court is directed to the Motion for Reconsideration for a detailed explanation and document. See, attached hereto at Pet.Att. -34 through 72. These DV Matters Require Clarification By The Court of Appeals Petitioner respectfully urges this Court to grant this Petition Writ of Certiorari, and upon review reverse, or at a minimum vacate, the line of decisions below that began with Duty Judge Cravens June 5, 2008 Order prematurely quashing Judge Boyntons TPO. As with Coburn and Katsenellenbogen, such review court even if moot -- will help preserve the integrity of Maryland's statutory scheme to provide meaningful protection from domestic violence during the period that they are most vulnerable -- i.e., the time between the TPO's adoption and its court-set FPO evidentiary hearing.

23

Respectfully submitted,

Paul G. Griffin 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Ste. 710 Washington, D.C. 20009 (301) 254-2745 p-griffin@comcast.net

Roy Morris PO Box 100212 Arlington, Virginia 22210 (202) 657 5793 Roy_Morris@alum.mit.edu Counsel for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 12th day of November, 2010, I caused to be sent a copy of the forgoing Petition for Certiorari, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to: Sean O'Connell, 4113 Lee Highway, Arlington, VA 22207.

24

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF ATTACHMENT (PET.ATT.-____)

Docket For Tpo Case ...................................................................................................... Pet.Att.-1 Orders From Courts Below: .......................................................................................... Pet.Att.-6 June 2, 2008 TPO Order Of Judge Boynton .................................................... Pet.Att.-6 June 5, 2008 Order Quashing TPO Order Of Judge Craven ....................... Pet.Att.-16 June 1, 2009 Order Denying Motion To Vacate Of Judge Craven .............. Pet.Att.-18 August 13, 2010 Opinion Of Court Of Special Appeals ................................ Pet.Att.-19 October 28, 2010 Order Denying Recondition Of Opinion Of Court Of Special Appeals ............................................................................................................... Pet.Att.-31 October 28, 2010 Mandate ............................................................................... Pet.Att.-32 September 13, 2010 Motion For Reconsideration Of August 13, 2010 Opinion ..... Pet.Att.-34 Text ..................................................................................................................... Pet.Att.-34 Applicable Statutes ........................................................................................... Pet.Att.-50 Table Of Contents Of Exhibits To Motion For Reconsideration ................. Pet.Att.-53 Redlined Corrections Of Court Of Special Appeals Opinion ....................... Pet.Att.-54 Alm's Birth Certificate .................................................................................... Pet.Att.-60 August 1, 2007 DC Transcript (Omitted) ....................................................... Pet.Att.-62 September 1, 2007 Virginia Order .................................................................. Pet.Att.-63 October 1, 2007 Virginia GAL Order ............................................................. Pet.Att.-67 June 2, 2008 Montgomery County App Referral To Circuit Court Of TPO (Montgomery County App Program Contact Records/Progress Notes) ..... Pet.Att.-69 June 11, 2008 Montgomery County Erroneous Arrest Warrant For Non-Parental Kidnapping ........................................................................................................ Pet.Att.-71 November 12, 2009 Excerpts Of Exhibits To Brief Before Court Of Special Appeals September 28, 2009 Sheriff's Statement On Protective Orders ................... Pet.Att.-75 February 28, 2008 Forensic Interview ............................................................ Pet.Att.-77 June 2, 2008 Tpo Hearing Before Judge Boynton ......................................... Pet.Att.-79 June 4-5, 2008 Weather Report Of Severe Storm Overnight .................... Pet.Att.-115 June 4, 2008 Defendants "Notice" Of "Thursday" Hearing (No Date) .. Pet.Att.-117 June 5, 2008 Hearing Transcript Of Unscheduled Hearing Before Duty Judge Craven ................................................................. Pet.Att.-118 Excerpt Of Transcript Of April 6, 2009 Plea In "Kidnapping Case." ................. Pet.Att.-142
(From Exhibits To Brief For Appellee, Filed In Court Of Special Appeals January 6, 2010)