Assuming the question is when can a child choose where to live and have the court sanction the choice, the answer is never. However, Maryland has a statute (section 9-103 of the Family Law Article) which empowers a child age 16 or older to file his or her own custody action. In addition, it is possible to convey a child's wishes (even a child under age 16) to the court in other ways. This can be done by way of an interview of the child by a judge, or by the appointment of a Best Interest Attorney (a lawyer who represents neither party, but rather advocates for what the lawyer believes to be best for the child) or a Child Advocate Attorney (less common; where a lawyer represents the child and advocates for the child's wishes).
Making clear that the wishes of a child, even an older teenager, are never controlling, is the case of Fanning v. Warfield. In that case, the teenage son (I believe he was 15) said he wanted to live with his dad. Actually, he all but INSISTED that he live with his dad. The court awarded custody to the mother, stating "it may well be that the boy's character would be strengthened by his learning what his father apparently has not yet learned, that in this imperfect world one cannot have what he wants when he wants it, simply because he wants it."
That said, if an older teenager is articulate and has rational reasons for the custody arrangement he or she prefers, the child's preference will carry a good deal of weight.
Assuming the question is when can a child choose where to live and have the court sanction the choice, the answer is never. However, Maryland has a statute (section 9-103 of the Family Law Article) which empowers a child age 16 or older to file his or her own custody action. In addition, it is possible to convey a child's wishes (even a child under age 16) to the court in other ways. This can be done by way of an interview of the child by a judge, or by the appointment of a Best Interest Attorney (a lawyer who represents neither party, but rather advocates for what the lawyer believes to be best for the child) or a Child Advocate Attorney (less common; where a lawyer represents the child and advocates for the child's wishes).
Making clear that the wishes of a child, even an older teenager, are never controlling, is the case of Fanning v. Warfield. In that case, the teenage son (I believe he was 15) said he wanted to live with his dad. Actually, he all but INSISTED that he live with his dad. The court awarded custody to the mother, stating "it may well be that the boy's character would be strengthened by his learning what his father apparently has not yet learned, that in this imperfect world one cannot have what he wants when he wants it, simply because he wants it."
That said, if an older teenager is articulate and has rational reasons for the custody arrangement he or she prefers, the child's preference will carry a good deal of weight.
