Maryland Code
Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 1-202 (2026)
§ 1-202
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MD-GAmgaleg.maryland.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§1–202.
(a) In an action in which custody, visitation rights, or the amount of support of a minor child is contested, the court may:
(1) (i) appoint a lawyer who shall serve as a child advocate attorney to represent the minor child and who may not represent any party to the action; or
(ii) appoint a lawyer who shall serve as a best interest attorney to represent the minor child and who may not represent any party to the action; and
(2) impose counsel fees against one or more parties to the action.
(b) A lawyer appointed under this section shall exercise ordinary care and diligence in the representation of a minor child.
(a) In an action in which custody, visitation rights, or the amount of support of a minor child is contested, the court may:
(1) (i) appoint a lawyer who shall serve as a child advocate attorney to represent the minor child and who may not represent any party to the action; or
(ii) appoint a lawyer who shall serve as a best interest attorney to represent the minor child and who may not represent any party to the action; and
(2) impose counsel fees against one or more parties to the action.
(b) A lawyer appointed under this section shall exercise ordinary care and diligence in the representation of a minor child.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Taylor v. Mandel, 935 A.2d 671 (Md. 2007).
Taylor v. Mandel, 935 A.2d 671 (Md. 2007). “Primarily, though, she asserted that Mandel could not recover guardian ad litem fees from her because she was not a "parent" within the purview of Section 1-202 of the Family Law Article, Maryland Code (1999, 2004 Repl.”
Fox v. Wills, 890 A.2d 726 (Md. 2006). “), § 1-202 of the Family Law Article, is entitled to immunity from tort liability while acting in his capacity under the statute.”
D'AOUST v. Diamond, 36 A.3d 941 (Md. 2012). “We noted that § 1-202 of the Family Law Article of the Maryland Code "is a short and succinct statute authorizing the court to `appoint to represent the minor child counsel who may not represent any party to the action.”
Goldberg v. Miller, 810 A.2d 947 (Md. 2002). “Goldberg, Esquire, (“Goldberg”), seeks review of the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and asks this Court to determine whether guardian ad litem fees imposed pursuant to Maryland Code § 1-202 of the Family Law Article (1984, 1999 Repl.”
Vlastelica v. Brend, 2011 IL App (1st) 102587 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “Fox is inapposite, as the court there held that an attorney appointed for a child pursuant to section 1-202 of the Family Law Article ( Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 1-202 (West 1984 & 2004 repl.”
Vlastelica v. Brend, 954 N.E.2d 874 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “Fox is inapposite, as the court there held that an attorney appointed for a child pursuant to section 1-202 of the Family Law Article (Md.Code Ann., Fam. Law § 1-202 (West 1984 & 2004 repl.”
Gillespie v. Gillespie, 47 A.3d 1018 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012). “A court order requiring that a party involved in a custody dispute pay counsel fees to a best interest attorney is authorized by § 1-202 of the Family Law Article, which provides in pertinent part: *178 (a) In general.”
Sinton v. Blaemire (In Re Blaemire), 229 B.R. 665 (Bankr. D. Md. 1999). “The appointment was made under MD CODE ANN., FAM. LAW § 1-202 (1991), that authorizes the appointment of counsel for minor children of the parties whenever custody, visitation, or the amount of support of a minor child is contested.”
Van Schaik v. Van Schaik, 603 A.2d 908 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992). “It provides in pertinent part: In an action in which custody, visitation rights, or the amount of support of a minor child is contested, the court may: (1) appoint to represent the minor child counsel who may not represent any party to the action---- Md.Code Ann., Fam.Law §…”
Azizova v. Suleymanov, 243 Md. App. 340 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019). “), § 1-202 of the Family Law Article. The rules provide that the cost for a custody evaluation or for the appointment of a best interest attorney may be assessed against the parties; nevertheless, we take judicial notice that, according to the Washington County Circuit Court…”
David A. v. Karen S., 213 A.3d 685 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019). “We have not identified any legislative history from the 1967, 1984, or 1993 enactments that sheds light on the specific inquiry before us.”
Kretschmer v. Levin (In Re Levin), 306 B.R. 158 (Bankr. D. Md. 2004). “), which authorizes the appointment of counsel for minor children of the parties whenever custody, visitation, or the amount of support of a minor is contested.”
— Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 1-202(2) — 1 case
Goldberg v. Miller, 810 A.2d 947 (Md. 2002). “Goldberg, Esquire, (“Goldberg”), seeks review of the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and asks this Court to determine whether guardian ad litem fees imposed pursuant to Maryland Code § 1-202 of the Family Law Article (1984, 1999 Repl.”
— Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 1-202(a) — 1 case
McAllister v. McAllister, 97 A.3d 227 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014).
— Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 1-202(a)(1) — 1 case
Van Schaik v. Van Schaik, 24 A.3d 241 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011).
— Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 1-202(a)(1)(ii) — 1 case
Augustin v. Duncan (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.