Neal, Carlton A. v. Jacobs

*This is an unreported opinion. This opinion may not be cited as precedent within the rule
of stare decisis. It may be cited for persuasive value only if the citation conforms to
Maryland Rule 1-104(a)(2)(B).
Circuit Court for Howard County
Case No. 13-C-17-111465
UNREPORTED*
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 365
September Term, 2026
______________________________________
CARLTON A. NEAL
v.
COCONUT TOYA LOWETTE JACOBS
______________________________________
Arthur,
Friedman,
Kehoe, S.,
JJ.
______________________________________
Opinion by Kehoe, J.
______________________________________
Filed: October 15, 2026

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
Appellant Carlton A. Neal (“Father”) appeals from an Order for Modification of
Custody in which the Circuit Court for Howard County, among other holdings, declined to
modify Appellee Coconut Jacobs’s (“Mother”) primary physical custody of the parties’
minor child “M.J.,” 1 (“Child”). Father argues that the circuit court improperly based its
decision on its personal opinion of Father’s lack of support of Child’s participation in golf
and overlooked evidence that Mother pressured Child to participate in the sport. As relief,
Father requests shared physical custody. We reject these arguments and affirm.
I. 	QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Father 2 presents two questions for our review, which we rephrase 3 as follows:
1. 	Did the circuit improperly consider its personal views in basing its
decision not to award Father shared physical custody in part on his
lack of support for Child’s participation in golf?
2. 	Did the circuit court impermissibly overlook evidence that Mother
forced Child to participate in golf?
We answer no to both questions.
1 We use Child’s initials for anonymity.
2 Mother did not file a brief in this matter.
3 In his informal brief, Father labels the issue as “Modification of Custody
03/26/2026” and in support claims that the circuit court “was influenced in part by [its]
personal view of how [Father] should support the child’s participation in golf.” He further
states that the circuit court “overlook[ed] evidence that [Mother] pressured the minor child
to participate in competitive [golf] despite the child’s reluctance.”
In the related cases section of his brief, Father complains that the circuit court did
not hold Mother in contempt or impose another consequence after Mother moved to Florida
without his consent or court approval. To the extent this is an argument relevant here, it is
not preserved for our review because Father did not request contempt in the hearing and
order from which he appeals. Md. Rule 8-131(a).

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
2
II. 	FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND4
Mother and Father are the parents of Child, who was born in 2015. From the time
of her birth until June 2016, Child resided with Mother in Florida. Since June 2016, Child
has lived with Mother in Columbia, Maryland. Throughout Child’s life, Mother was her
primary caretaker. On May 12, 2017, Mother filed a Complaint to Establish Paternity,
Child Support, and Visitation. She sought sole legal and primary physical custody as well
as child support. On September 26, 2017, Father filed a Counter Complaint and sought
shared physical custody and joint legal custody.
After a mediation session, the parties entered into a Parenting Agreement on
December 11, 2017. That agreement provided that the parties have joint legal custody. It
further provided that Mother would have primary physical custody of Child and that Father
would have Child on alternating weekends and an increasing number of weeks each
summer. The agreement also contained terms related to child support, communication and
other subjects. On December 19, 2017, the circuit court entered a Consent Order for
Custody that incorporated the terms of the agreement and awarded the parties joint legal
custody and granted Mother primary physical custody and Father “reasonable and liberal”
visitation as set forth in the agreement.
On September 14, 2024, Mother filed a Motion for Custody Modification and
Relocation seeking a modification of the custody order to grant her sole legal custody and
4 The record contains many documents related to child support, legal custody and
other issues. Because Father contests the circuit court’s decision only as it relates to
physical custody, we outline only those facts that pertain to that issue.

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
3
for relocation of Child to Florida. Mother noted that she accepted a job transfer that
required her to move to Florida and that Child wished to move to receive year-round golf
training. Mother further stated that Father had failed to follow the parenting schedule and
was an “absentee parent.” In a separate motion for contempt, Mother alleged that Father
failed to pay his share of medical fees and golf expenses.
On October 8, 2024, Father filed a counterclaim and sought primary physical
custody and stated that Mother was “vindictive” and allowing relocation would make it
difficult for him to see Child. Father also alleged that Mother had designed Child’s
participation in golf to justify relocation. On January 23, 2025, Father filed another
counterclaim, which was, in effect, an amended counterclaim, and alleged that Mother
relocated Child in advance of a scheduled custody hearing.
A hearing before a magistrate was held on February 11, 2025. The magistrate issued
a written report and recommendations on February 14, 2025. On March 5, 2025, the court
held a hearing on Father’s Exceptions. The circuit court denied the Exceptions, adopted the
findings and recommendations of the magistrate and entered an order, dated March 5, 2025,
that continued Mother’s primary physical custody and ordered that Child would spend
seven weeks in the summer and her winter break with Father, and further that Father could
visit Child in Florida and that the parties would alternate certain holidays and breaks. On
March 17, 2025, in an unrelated custody matter,5 Mother filed a motion in which she stated
that she had returned to Maryland. On April 23, 2025, Father filed an Amended Complaint
5 Coconut Jacobs v. Brandon Ansley-Johnson, Case No.: C-13-FM-23-001071.

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
4
for 	Modification 	of 	Custody 	seeking 	primary 	physical 	and 	sole 	legal 	custody, 	or
alternatively, shared physical and joint legal custody. Father’s amended complaint also
alleged that Mother had moved back to Maryland without telling Father. Mother responded
in opposition and cited several examples of Father’s failures to visit Child. On July 23,
2025, the circuit court, pursuant to Md. Rule 9-205.3(f)(3), appointed Brandi Jay, a licensed
master social worker, to conduct a specific issue evaluation regarding the parties’
relationship with Child. 6
On November 12, 2025, the social worker submitted a report. The report identified
its sources as the litigation history and interviews with Mother, Father, Child, Father’s
fiancée, and the father of Mother’s son. During her interview, Mother repeated her
assertions that Father did not consistently follow the access schedule and made coparenting
difficult. Father countered that Mother had not provided him access to Child before the
2017 circuit court order, that sickness had prevented some of his visits and that Mother
failed to share information with him. During Child’s interview, she reported a positive
relationship with both parents but noted that her parents did not have a good relationship
with each other. Child also reported enjoying golfing with Mother. Child further expressed
a desire to alternate weeks with each parent.
The report concluded that Child had a loving relationship with both parents and that
both parents were fit and proper parents. It further concluded that the “toxicity” between
6 Because of the report’s confidential nature, we do not unnecessarily delve into the
details of its findings and conclusions.

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
5
Mother and Father represented the greatest threat to Child’s well-being. Finally, the report
recommended that the circuit court award shared physical custody with Father having
Child every Wednesday overnight and every other extended weekend from Wednesday to
Monday. The report also recommended alternating weeks during the summer and shared
school breaks, and further recommended liberal communication with the noncustodial
parent, sharing of extracurricular expenses and the continued use of a coparenting
application.
On February 23, 2026, Mother filed a Petition to Modify Legal Custody seeking
sole legal custody. The circuit court conducted a hearing on March 26, 2026 on the
respective requests to modify custody and Mother’s petition for contempt. 7 The circuit
court first set out to clarify the parties’ respective requests. Father began by stating that he
sought a 50/50 custody arrangement with a “2-2-5” schedule. 8 Mother countered that the
circuit court should modify the arrangement to the terms of the original order issued in
2017 and that gave Father every other weekend.
After hearing testimony and argument, the circuit court placed its findings of fact
and ruling on the record. It began by stating that Father seemed to be “a really nice person”
with a “sincere desire to increase his time with his child and be an active part of her life.”
7 Mother filed a petition for contempt related to Child’s activity fees and medical
expenses on September 28, 2024.
8 Under a “2-2-5” schedule, one parent has the child every Monday and Tuesday
overnight, the other has the child every Wednesday and Thursday overnight, and the
parents alternate Friday through Sunday each week. Jose v. Jose, 237 Md. App. 588, 596
n. 3 (2018).

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
6
It also recognized that Mother had done “a terrific job raising a terrific kid.” It determined
that Child primarily lived with Mother and thus awarding Father primary custody would
represent a “complete upheaval” of Child’s life. It found that Mother did well as the
primary custodian, save for her lack of communication. It then admonished Father for his
lack of support of Child’s participation in golf. It further admonished both parents for their
subpar communication and noted that if they only decided to “bury the hatchet” that they
“could co-parent beautifully.”
The circuit court went on to recognize the importance of golf to Child’s self-esteem
and encouraged both parents to support that activity. It also noted that Mother “has
traditionally met the child’s health and educational needs and has acted as a single-parent
primary 	caregiver, 	and 	[Father] 	has 	those 	abilities, 	but 	hasn’t 	been 	consistent 	in
demonstrating them in the past.” The circuit court then moved to determining Child’s best
interests. It noted that Child needed to play golf, continue to do well in school, have parents
who do not place her in the middle of conflicts and spend more time with Father.
The circuit court determined that a material change in circumstances existed given
Mother’s return to Maryland since the most recent hearing. It extended Father’s alternate
weekends time from Friday school pick-up to Monday drop-off. It also awarded Father
overnight visitation each Wednesday after a period of eight Wednesday-night visits. It
further allowed Father four weeks during the summer with notice to Mother. It then ordered
that 	Father 	must 	accommodate 	Child’s 	golf 	obligations 	and 	encouraged 	Father 	to
participate in that activity. Finally, the circuit court provided instructions for expenses and

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
7
left legal custody unmodified. On March 30, 2026, the circuit court issued an Order for
Modification of Custody memorializing its holding. Father noted the instant appeal on
April 17, 2026.
Additional facts will be supplied as they relate to the issues on appeal.
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	The Circuit Court’s Alleged Use of its Personal Viewpoints
Father states that it “is an ethical violation for the judge to base a decision on
personal opinions” and further that judges are “required to be neutral arbiters who decide
cases based strictly on established laws, statutes, and legal precedents.” He further argues
that the circuit court’s decision “was influenced in part by her personal view of how
[Father] should support the child’s participation in golf.” Father then cites 9 a portion of the
circuit court’s ruling that reads:
But the person I’m focused on, of course, is [Child], who’s a
10-year-old, who’s a golf whiz.
And I will tell dad, when we have a 10-year-old child, we adjust to
that child, we do not fit the child into our lives. When she’s six months old,
she has to fit into our lives, although we really are at her mercy. But when
she’s 10 years old and she’s been playing golf half of her life, that is half of
her life. That is part of her life.
And to reject that is to reject her. And to reject part of her that’s
important to her, to her social structure, to her self-esteem, to her value,
something that she’s worked hard at. And I can’t imagine that you’re not on
the sidelines cheering or going like this (claps quietly) as they do in golf,
louder than any other parent in the entire place, because of your incredible
pride over your child’s accomplishments. And that concerns me.
9 In his brief, Father references two portions of the transcript. The first is from the
circuit court’s ruling and the second is from his opening statement. The latter appears to
relate to the second issue and is thus discussed in Section III(B).

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
8
Father’s challenge is best construed as an allegation that the circuit court possessed
a bias against Father. 10 This argument is not preserved for our review. To preserve review
of a claim of judicial bias, a party must raise the issue with the circuit court in a manner
such that the record reflects the following requirements:
(1) facts are set forth in reasonable detail sufficient to show the purported
bias of the trial judge; (2) the facts in support of the claim must be made in
the presence of opposing counsel and the judge who is the subject of the
charges; (3) counsel must not be ambivalent in setting forth his or her
position regarding the charges; and (4) the relief sought must be stated with
particularity and clarity.
Baltimore Cotton Duck, LLC v. Ins. Comm’r of the State of Maryland, 259 Md. App. 376,
401 (2023) (quoting Braxton v. Faber, 91 Md. App. 391, 408–09 (1992)). Father, who was
represented by counsel in the circuit court, took no such action either during the hearing or
by way of a subsequent motion. This requirement is critical to avoid the weaponization of
allegations of bias to avoid unfavorable rulings. Harford Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Jones, 264
Md. App. 520, 543 (2025) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 490 Md. 640 (2025). Because
we “will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been
raised in or decided by the trial court,” we decline to address this issue. Md. Rule 8-131(a).
Even if we were to hold that Father preserved the argument, we would reject it all
the same. Maryland law recognizes a “strong presumption” that judges act impartially.
10 Father is proceeding pro se on appeal and so we give him the benefit of liberally
construing his brief. Simms v. State, 409 Md. 722, 731 (2009). Accordingly, we do our best
to map his argument onto a cognizable doctrine, but we can only do so much. See Granados
v. Nadel, 220 Md. App. 482, 499 (2014) (“The appellate court is not an advocate tasked
with searching for each party’s winning argument.”).

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
9
Baltimore Cotton Duck, LLC, 259 Md. App. at 402. To overcome that presumption, a
litigant must show that the judge possesses some personal bias or prejudice, or knowledge
derived from an extrajudicial source. Jefferson-El v. State, 330 Md. 99, 107 (1993)
(citations omitted). “Bald allegations and adverse rulings are not sufficient to overcome the
presumption of impartiality.” Reed v. Baltimore Life Ins. Co., 127 Md. App. 536, 556
(1999) (citing Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 104 Md. App. 1, 55
(1995)).
Our Supreme Court has recognized that “[f]ormula or computer solutions in child
custody matters are impossible because of the unique character of each case, and the
subjective nature of the evaluations and decisions that must be made.” Taylor v. Taylor,
306 Md. 290, 303 (1986). We understand that Father disagrees with the circuit court’s
assessment and decision, but that challenge is “more appropriately reviewed in the context
of whether the judge’s rulings comport with applicable law, rather than by divining a
motive speculatively attributed to the trial judge . . . .” Harford Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 264 Md.
App. at 547 (quoting Reed, 127 Md. App. at 552). There is nothing in the record
demonstrating an iota of bias nor partiality on the part of the circuit court. 11 Our review of
11 The cases in which Maryland’s appellate courts vacated custody determinations
involved personal views that represented a broad bias against certain types of parents rather
than an individualized assessment of the case before the court. For example, courts have
found error when the circuit court prohibited the presence of the father’s same-sex partner
without making a factual finding that his presence would harm the children, Boswell v.
Boswell, 352 Md. 204, 239–40 (1998) and when the circuit court considered a parent’s
religious view alone and not its impact on the child’s welfare, Bienenfeld v. Bennett-White,
91 Md. App. 488, 507 (1992). Those cases are inapposite. We do not understand Father to

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
10
the record reveals nothing more than a determination that it was in Child’s best interest to
play golf and a further determination that Father was insufficiently supportive of that need.
Father may feel that consideration erroneous, 12 but he has failed to show that the circuit
court acted with bias or partiality.
B. 	The Allegation that Mother Forced Child to Participate in Golf
Father also alleges that the circuit court failed to consider “evidence” that Mother
forced Child to play golf. He cites a portion of his opening statement in which his counsel
stated that “[g]olf certainly can be an aspect of his child’s life, but it’s taken over and should
not take precedent [sic] over my client’s time as a child.” That argument does not support
the allegation that Mother forced Child to play golf. And in any event, opening statements
are not evidence. State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 460 (2019). Father fails to point us to any
testimony that stands for the proposition that Mother forced Child to play golf. We will not
search for it. See Van Meter v. State, 30 Md. App. 406, 408 (1976) (“We cannot be expected
argue that the circuit court possesses some broad prejudice against those who would not
have chosen golf for their child’s sport, rather the circuit court’s comments were wholly
tethered to its finding that golf was important to Child and that Father did not support that
need.
12 Even if Father’s argument was properly framed as an allegation that the circuit
court could not consider his lack of support, that argument would remain meritless. See
Azizova v. Suleymanov, 243 Md. App. 340, 346 (2019) (citing Cynthia Callahan & Thomas
C. Ries, Fader’s Maryland Family Law § 5-3(a), at 5-9 to 5-11 (6th ed. 2016)) (identifying
a non-exhaustive list of factors in custody determinations including disruption to the child’s
social life and “[a]ny other consideration the court determines is relevant to the best interest
of the child.”). The record leaves little doubt that Child’s successful participation in golf
falls squarely into both categories.

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
11
to delve through the record to unearth factual support favorable to appellant and then seek
out law to sustain his position.”).
Even if that evidence existed in the record, we see no error. Father testified that he
had no objection to Child playing golf “as long as it doesn’t interfere with my parenting
time.” Instead, he appeared to take issue with what he testified was a failure to include him
in that decision. The circuit court explicitly addressed Father’s objections and stated: “You
can’t wait until five years after a child’s in an activity to say, hey, wait, I never agreed to
that. She’s in it. She’s staying in it. It’s in her best interest to stay in it. And until she
doesn’t, it isn’t in it anymore.” The circuit court also determined that Child “needs to play
golf” and that golf is “very important to her feelings of self-esteem and inclusion into a
group, and perhaps at the higher level of that group.” How Child came to be a golfer
notwithstanding, the circuit court determined that remaining in golf was in Child’s best
interest. There is no error in that determination.
C. 	The Circuit Court’s Determination of Custody
Though he requests that we grant him “50-50 physical custody,” Father does not
separately 	challenge 	the 	circuit 	court’s 	weighing 	of 	the 	evidence 	nor 	its 	ultimate
determination. Instead, he presented two narrow questions for our review that we have
addressed above. Were we to address such a challenge, however, we note that Father would
face a difficult burden. Because “there is no such thing as a simple custody case,” judges
“agonize[] more about reaching the right result in a contested custody issue than about any
other type of decision.” Gizzo v. Gerstman, 245 Md. App. 168, 200 (2020) (quoting

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
12
Bienenfeld, 91 Md. App. at 502–03). Accordingly, circuit courts have great discretion in
determining a child’s best interests and appellate courts will not disturb that determination
unless the circuit court made clearly erroneous findings or clearly abused its discretion.
Gizzo, 245 Md. App. at 200.
A circuit court abuses its discretion “when no reasonable person would take the
view adopted by the trial court, or when the court acts without reference to any guiding
rules or principles, or when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of facts and
inferences before the court.” Gizzo, 245 Md. App. at 201 (citing Santo v. Santo, 448 Md.
620, 625–26 (2016)). We recognize that the circuit court has a unique ability to hear the
testimony and assess the credibility of the parties and witnesses. Gizzo, 245 Md. App. at
201 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we “rarely, if ever, actually find a reversible abuse
of discretion on this issue.” Id. (quoting McCarty v. McCarty, 147 Md. App. 268, 273
(2002)).
Here, the circuit court issued a lengthy and well-reasoned ruling in which it
thoroughly addressed several considerations, including Child’s participation in golf and
Father’s lack of encouragement, the fact that Mother successfully acted as the primary
caretaker for all of Child’s life and Father’s occasional unwillingness to take advantage of
extra time with Child. It also considered Child’s desire to spend more time with Father and
Father’s reciprocal desire. It is unlikely that the circuit court’s refusal to completely reverse
the custodial relationship of the parents would warrant the rare step of vacating that
decision.

-Unreported Opinion-
__________________________________________________________________
13
IV. 	C ONCLUSION
Father naturally disagrees with the circuit court’s decision. Nonetheless, he has
failed 	to 	convince 	us 	that 	it 	exhibited 	anything 	less 	than 	impartial 	and 	thorough
consideration of Child’s best interests. Because we can ask no more of the circuit court
than that, we affirm.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
HOWARD COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO
BE PAID BY APPELLANT.