Being a difficult co-parent is not a winning strategy.

On October 21, 2024, the South Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Khalil Abbas-Ghaleb v. Anna Ghaleb. 

While there are a number of issues dealt with by the Court of Appeals, today I’m focusing on the issues related to child custody.

The Court noted a number of times (and immediately in the first five words of the opinion) that this was “contentious marital litigation”. 

While the appeal covered issues related to the equitable apportionment, there was extensive background regarding the parents’ interactions surrounding their daughter.

The parties married in June 2017 and this action was filed June 2019. The court noted the parties lived together only seven months of their marriage. During the time they lived together, Wife left her job in Washington, D.C. and moved to Aiken, South Carolina to live with husband and be a stay-at-home parent.

The parents could not agree on even the smallest of things. When it came to the child’s healthcare, they certainly could not agree. The parents hid decisions about the child’s medical treatment from each other (sometimes lack of treatment and other times they hid that the child was treated). The Court was very concerned about how that behavior would affect the child moving forward. 

The Family Court opined the “[Daughter] is the trophy to be won and the war is a ’take no hostages’ battle.” Every communication appeared to be a tit-for-tat. If Mother asked to take the child to visit family in another state, Father would only agree if he could take the child to visit family in Lebanon. 

Father was described as a control freak. While he did not want to handle the day-to-day care of the child, he wanted the care to be done according to his instruction and desire.

Mother exhibited gatekeeping behaviors and kept the child away from Father by moving to Florida and limiting Father’s contact. At least one expert said this may have been protective rather than gatekeeping.

There was constant disagreement about the child’s healthcare and whether to follow medical guidance. Mother had a history of withholding care of the child (failing to supplement her diet when she was not gaining weight as an infant, refusing to vaccinate against recommendations of doctors, declining to fill a prescription after days of the child having a fever and ear infections). On the other hand, Husband would remotely make medical appointments for the child (while the child was with Mother). 

The Family Court ordered joint custody and divided up decision-making between the parents. Father was granted decision-making authority for medical decisions. Mother was granted decision-making authority for all other decisions. It’s not unusual for me to advise clients that if they cannot co-parent – and a contested custody case is usually good evidence that they will not be able to co-parent – then they should prepare for the court to award one parent primary physical placement and decision-making and the other parent will have no decision-making authority and some parenting schedule.

In my experience, Family Courts are often slow to award joint custody to parents when it is clear they cannot co-parent. In this case, there was ample evidence from even before the child was born that they were not going to be able to communicate or co-parent in the slightest. But, both parents failed to act in ways that protect the child fully and the Family Court noted the child was a “trophy to be won.” I’m not sure the Family Court thought either parent would fully protect the child and that was an exceptional circumstance to divide up the parental authority in the way it did.

Another portion of the order assesses additional costs against Father due to “his evasive testimony…(along with his steadfast refusal to candidly acknowledge the marital nature of certain transferred funds or even admit the existence of certain accounts)” leading to much confusion of some of the issues.

Much can be learned about how to advise our clients to behave in hotly contested marital litigation. In my experience, the party who acts the worst is often treated the worst by the Court.  I can certainly empathize with those dealing with a difficult spouse while going through a divorce, but I have to imagine this case would have turned out much differently had one of the parents acted reasonably throughout.