Hanke v. Hanke
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
615 A.2d 1205 (1992)
Mary Elizabeth Hanke and Dan Hanke separated after Mrs. Hanke’s 11-year-old daughter from an earlier marriage told her mother than Mr. Hanke had sexually abused her. The incident of sexual abuse occurred just once, while Mr. Hanke was drunk, but he had physically abused the same stepdaughter in a manner involving sexual undertones for a long period before then. Mr. Hanke admitted to the sexual abuse, was criminally charged, and received a suspended sentence as a result of a plea bargain. At the time of the parties’ separation, Mrs. Hanke was pregnant and eventually gave birth to a daughter. The couple divorced in August 1990 when the daughter was three or four years old. In March 1991, the court awarded Mr. Hanke four-hour unsupervised visitation periods with the daughter every other week. In May 1991, the couple’s daughter told a teenage family friend that Mr. Hanke had touched her in an inappropriate place. Mrs. Hanke observed scarring in the girl’s genital area and brought her to a medical facility for examination. The doctor reported that prior abuse could not be excluded. Mr. Hanke was examined by a mental health evaluator by court order. The evaluator recommended that Mr. Hanke be prohibited from spending time alone with his daughter. Mr. Hanke’s attorney, along with attorneys representing the child and the county department of social services all recommended that any visitation between Mr. Hanke and his child be supervised. A small amount of evidence suggested that Mrs. Hanke was overreacting and that Mr. Hanke was not a threat. At some point, Mrs. Hanke relocated with the child to her home state of Kentucky, an event that clearly irritated the judge. In August 1991, the court granted Mr. Hanke overnight visitation with his daughter. One of four friends of Mr. Hanke was to be present during such visits. Because Mrs. Hanke refused to allow visitation, the court had the child removed from her custody. Mrs. Hanke appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Bell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.