Section 12-103 Summary

1. However, if for some reason this Court should want to overlook the Plaintiff’s error and apply Section 12-103 of the Family Law Article, this Court would have to perform the analysis required under this section where it should still deny the Plaintiff’s motion in that at this time the Court is unable to make such an analysis without making a determination that there is justification or absence of justification of either party for either party for bringing, maintaining, or defending the current proceedings.

2. Currently before the Court, both parties are seeking to be awarded legal costs under Section 12-103(a)(1), whereas the Defendant is also seeking fees under Section 12-12-103(a)(2)(iii), 12-103(c). In this present case, the Plaintiff

McNeil, while filing numerous Petitions for Contempt, had a substantial justification for filing the same because he was denied visitation with his children, contrary to court Order which had not been modified or challenged by filing a petition timely. The Court notes that, although Mrs. McNeil was not found in contempt of this Court, Mr. McNeil had the right to challenge Mrs. McNeil 's actions. Given the context of the actions within the scope of this case, Mrs. McNeil was not found to be in willful contempt of this Court 's Orders. Mrs. McNeil had other avenues to act in the best interest of the children, i.e., file an emergency motion for modification of visitation; regardless of what she could have done, her actions contributed to the litigation. Thus, the petitions, as with all of Mr. McNeil 's filings after the September 2010 hearing, are found to have substantial justification in fact and law. Additionally, the Court notes that Mrs. McNeil 's Petition to Modify Visitation was also justified; however, as noted above, Mr. McNeil was justified in his defense. Therefore, the Court finds there to be no frivolous claims or claims to be without substantial justification. In so finding, Mrs. McNeil is not entitled to attorney 's