Khalifa v. Shannon: How Much Interference is Too Much when it comes to a Tort for Interfering with the Parent-Child Relationship?

Beth Rosenberg

In Khalifa v. Shannon, the Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether Maryland recognizes a cause of action in tort for intentional interference with the parent-child relationship and whether a claimant must show that the interference caused an economic loss to maintain a viable cause of action. The court held that a tort claim exists for intentional interference with custodial and visitation rights and that an economic loss of services is not necessary for a viable claim. In so holding, the court improperly based its decision on Hixon v. Buchberger by concluding that Maryland had recognized a cause of action for interference with the parent-child relationship in that case. Although allowing a cause of action for interference with custodial rights is in accordance with policy considerations and the national trend, the court failed to consider the significant negative policy implications raised by its unnecessarily broad decision. Thus, although the court correctly decided the case at issue given the severity of the facts, it should have restricted the scope of its holding to only allow recovery in tort for intentional interference with custodial rights.