Skip to content
-
Subscribe to our newsletter & never miss our best posts. Subscribe Now!
Family & State

News at the Intersection of Family and Government

Family & State

News at the Intersection of Family and Government

  • Home
  • About
    • Archive
    • Not a Substitute for an Attorney
    • Press & Media Inquiries
    • Press Releases
    • Services
    • Substack Feed
  • Start Here
  • Latest News
  • Investigations
    • California Investigations
      • California’s Broken Public Defense System
        • Public Records
      • Inside People v. Smiel
        • Analysis & Commentary – People v. Smiel
        • Resources – People v. Smiel
        • Support & Action – People v. Smiel
      • Inside the California Custody Cartel
    • International Investigations
    • Low Country Family Court Corruption
    • Marc Fishman – The Justice Warrior
    • Maryland Child Welfare & Foster Care
      • News & Reporting (Md. Child Welfare)
      • Public Records (Md. Child Welfare)
    • Maryland Domestic Violence
      • Clarke v. Gibson
    • Reichert v. Hornbeck: A Father’s Fight for Truth, Custody, and Justice
      • Reichert v. Hornbeck Updates
    • Still Here
    • Stolen Holidays
    • The Crimes That Never Happened
    • The McPhail Papers: How a Fit Mississippi Father Was Imprisoned for Six Years Without a Hearing
    • Why Family Court Reform Keeps Failing
  • Projects
    • Project ADA
      • News & Analysis
    • Project CONSTITUTION
      • Essays
    • Project EXILE
      • News & Reporting (EXILE)
      • The Exile Wall
    • Project GUARDIAN
      • Case Files
      • Education Watch
    • Project HAVEN
      • Abuse & Justice News
      • The Origin Archive
      • The Shadow Reports
    • Project IMAGE
      • Media Watch
      • Reframed
    • Project INNOCENCE
      • Investigations
      • The System
    • Project LEGACY
      • Essays & Reporting (LEGACY)
    • Project LIVELIHOOD
    • Project STEWARDSHIP
      • Project STEWARDSHIP
    • Project SYSTEM
      • Family Court 101
      • Procedural Harm: How Family Court Erases Parents Without Saying No
      • The Litigant Experience
      • The Patterns of Family Court: What Every Case Keeps Revealing
        • The Patterns Series
    • The Military Family Justice Project
      • Data Library (MFJP)
      • Military Family Court Exposé
      • News & Reporting (MFJP)
      • Project Blueprint: Data Story Dashboard
    • The Unseen Project
      • The Mission (Unseen)
  • Voices & Editorials
    • Editorials
      • Editorial Standards
    • Letters to the Editor
      • Letters to the Editor Policy
    • Voices: Guest Perspectives
    • Contributor Agreement
    • Submission Guidelines
  • Support
  • Submit a Tip
  • Home
  • About
    • Archive
    • Not a Substitute for an Attorney
    • Press & Media Inquiries
    • Press Releases
    • Services
    • Substack Feed
  • Start Here
  • Latest News
  • Investigations
    • California Investigations
      • California’s Broken Public Defense System
        • Public Records
      • Inside People v. Smiel
        • Analysis & Commentary – People v. Smiel
        • Resources – People v. Smiel
        • Support & Action – People v. Smiel
      • Inside the California Custody Cartel
    • International Investigations
    • Low Country Family Court Corruption
    • Marc Fishman – The Justice Warrior
    • Maryland Child Welfare & Foster Care
      • News & Reporting (Md. Child Welfare)
      • Public Records (Md. Child Welfare)
    • Maryland Domestic Violence
      • Clarke v. Gibson
    • Reichert v. Hornbeck: A Father’s Fight for Truth, Custody, and Justice
      • Reichert v. Hornbeck Updates
    • Still Here
    • Stolen Holidays
    • The Crimes That Never Happened
    • The McPhail Papers: How a Fit Mississippi Father Was Imprisoned for Six Years Without a Hearing
    • Why Family Court Reform Keeps Failing
  • Projects
    • Project ADA
      • News & Analysis
    • Project CONSTITUTION
      • Essays
    • Project EXILE
      • News & Reporting (EXILE)
      • The Exile Wall
    • Project GUARDIAN
      • Case Files
      • Education Watch
    • Project HAVEN
      • Abuse & Justice News
      • The Origin Archive
      • The Shadow Reports
    • Project IMAGE
      • Media Watch
      • Reframed
    • Project INNOCENCE
      • Investigations
      • The System
    • Project LEGACY
      • Essays & Reporting (LEGACY)
    • Project LIVELIHOOD
    • Project STEWARDSHIP
      • Project STEWARDSHIP
    • Project SYSTEM
      • Family Court 101
      • Procedural Harm: How Family Court Erases Parents Without Saying No
      • The Litigant Experience
      • The Patterns of Family Court: What Every Case Keeps Revealing
        • The Patterns Series
    • The Military Family Justice Project
      • Data Library (MFJP)
      • Military Family Court Exposé
      • News & Reporting (MFJP)
      • Project Blueprint: Data Story Dashboard
    • The Unseen Project
      • The Mission (Unseen)
  • Voices & Editorials
    • Editorials
      • Editorial Standards
    • Letters to the Editor
      • Letters to the Editor Policy
    • Voices: Guest Perspectives
    • Contributor Agreement
    • Submission Guidelines
  • Support
  • Submit a Tip
  • https://www.facebook.com/
  • https://twitter.com/
  • https://t.me/
  • https://www.instagram.com/
  • https://youtube.com/

Clarke v. Gibson

The Maryland Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Clarke v. Gibson (2025) reshaped the state’s protective-order landscape. The Court held that judges cannot issue a final protective order based solely on disbelieving the accused; there must be affirmative evidence in the record. The decision strengthens due process, stabilizes custody outcomes, and ensures protective orders are built on clear, legally defensible findings — improving safety for survivors while curbing the misuse of domestic-violence laws in high-conflict custody disputes.

Maryland Must Act: The Legislature Cannot Ignore the Systemic Failures Exposed by Clarke v. Gibson

Maryland Must Act: The Legislature Cannot Ignore the Systemic Failures Exposed by Clarke v. Gibson

The Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling in Clarke v. Gibson reveals critical flaws in the state’s protective-order system, which often deprives parents of rights without sufficient evidence. To restore fairness, lawmakers must implement statutory reforms, including requiring written findings, guaranteeing counsel, and enforcing oversight mechanisms to ensure justice and protect families effectively.

by Michael Phillips December 7, 2025December 7, 2025
What Clarke v. Gibson Really Means for Domestic Violence Survivors: Stronger Protections, Clearer Evidence, and a More Stable Path to Safety

What Clarke v. Gibson Really Means for Domestic Violence Survivors: Stronger Protections, Clearer Evidence, and a More Stable Path to Safety

The Maryland Supreme Court’s decision in Clarke v. Gibson strengthens protections for domestic violence survivors by ensuring that protective orders are based on evidence and not merely on disbelief. This ruling clarifies the requirements for stability in protective orders, ensuring they withstand appeals and safeguard the rights and safety of survivors and children.

by Michael Phillips December 7, 2025December 7, 2025
After Clarke v. Gibson: What Maryland’s Landmark Ruling Means for False Accusations and Custody Warfare

After Clarke v. Gibson: What Maryland’s Landmark Ruling Means for False Accusations and Custody Warfare

The Maryland Supreme Court’s decision in Clarke v. Gibson mandates that protective orders must be supported by substantial evidence rather than assumptions or credibility findings. This ruling addresses the misuse of protective orders in custody disputes, ensuring fairness and due process for parents facing false allegations, ultimately strengthening the protective-order system’s integrity.

by Michael Phillips December 7, 2025December 7, 2025
Maryland Supreme Court Issues Major Protective-Order Ruling: Clarke v. Gibson Resets the Standard for Evidence, Due Process, and Parental Rights

Maryland Supreme Court Issues Major Protective-Order Ruling: Clarke v. Gibson Resets the Standard for Evidence, Due Process, and Parental Rights

The Maryland Supreme Court’s Clarke v. Gibson ruling strengthens due process protections in protective-order cases and demands real evidence before restricting parental rights.

by Michael Phillips December 6, 2025December 7, 2025

About
Father & Co. is an independent journalism and advocacy platform dedicated to rebuilding trust between parents, children, and the systems meant to protect them.
We report the stories others won’t—on family courts, child welfare, disability rights, and constitutional accountability.
→ Learn More

  • About Father & Co.
  • Our Mission
  • Editorial Standards
  • Who We Cover / What We Investigate
  • Contact
  • Corrections & Clarifications

Father & Co. documents family-court systems, parental rights, and due-process failures—through reporting, pattern analysis, and lived experience.

  • Support Our Work
  • Subscribe (Newsletter / Substack)
  • Membership
  • Donate
  • Partner With Us
  • Follow Us
    • X / Twitter
    • Substack
    • YouTube (if applicable)

Independent journalism. No legal advice. No paid outcomes.

Copyright 2026 — Family & State. All rights reserved. Blogsy WordPress Theme