Custody and visitation: intentional interference with visitation rights: issue preclusion
CSA No. 2859, Sept. Term 2010. Unreported. Opinion by Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (retired, specially assigned). Filed June 25, 2012. Appeal from Montgomery County. RecordFax #12-0625-07, 22 pages.
The registration and enforcement of a ne exeat order pursuant to the UCCJEA had no preclusive effect on a father’s separate tort action against his ex-wife and mother-in-law for intentional interference with visitation rights, since the court in the registration and enforcement action did not decide that the father had visitation rights, nor was it required to do so.