Delaney McKinney at Work

In the courtroom — and out —Delaney McKinney’s legal representation is characterized by creativity and compassion. We are proud of the results we obtain for our clients, as well as the recognition we receive for our work.

In the News

Delaney McKinney received a Tier 1 ranking in family law and mediation for the Washington, DC metropolitan area in the 2013 edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms.”

The Washingtonian

Linda A. Delaney and Margaret J. McKinney have been listed among the top divorce lawyers in The Washingtonian in every listing since 2004 and 2007 respectively. They were both listed in the 2014, 2011, 2009 and 2007 editions. Linda A. Delaney was also listed in the 2006 and 2004 editions.

Maryland Super Lawyers

  • Linda A. Delaney was selected to the Maryland Super Lawyers lists for family law in 2007-2014.
  • Margaret J. McKinney was selected in 2008-2014.
  • Hope L. Stafford was selected to the Maryland Super Lawyers – Rising Stars list for family law in 2013-2014.

Bethesda Magazine

  • Linda A. Delaney and Margaret J. McKinney were listed among the top 25 divorce lawyers in the November-December 2013 issue.
  • Linda A. Delaney was also listed in the May-June 2010 edition.

In the Community

  • Delaney McKinney is a Platinum Level participant – and the only participating family law firm – in the D.C. Access to Justice Commission’s “Raising the Bar Campaign.” The Campaign raises funds for the District’s legal services community by establishing benchmarks for law firm giving.
  • Margaret J. McKinney and Hope L. Stafford were named to the 2012 D.C. Court’s Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll for having performed 50 or more hours of pro bono work in 2012. Each of them were also named in the 2011 Pro Bono Honor Roll.
  • During Margaret J. McKinney’s tenure as co-chair of the Steering Committee of the Family Law Section of the D.C. Bar, the Section won the Best Bar Project (2002) and the Frederick B. Abramson award (2003).
  • Each month, Delaney McKinney attorneys volunteer for the Attorney Negotiator Program and the Self-Help Center of D.C.’s Family Court. Both programs provide free legal assistance and support to pro se litigants, most of whom are unable to afford counsel.
  • Attorneys at Delaney McKinney are regularly appointed to serve as pro bono or low bono guardians ad litem, best interest attorneys and mediators in family law cases in the District of Columbia and Montgomery County, MD.

In the Courts

Attorneys from Delaney McKinney were involved in the following published cases:

  • Jordan v. Jordan, 14 A.3d 1136 (D.C. 2011)
    The Court of Appeals considered the use of parent coordinators in custody cases. It held that the trial court has the authority to appoint a parent coordinator and to order the parties to work with that person to resolve their disagreements. It also held that the trial court may delegate to the parent coordinator the authority to resolve disagreements between the parents on day-to-day issues. It cannot, however, delegate to the parent coordinator the authority to resolve core issues of custody or visitation. Delaney McKinney represented the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, which appeared as amicus curiae in the case.
  • Rifka v. Dillenburg, 2011 D.C Super. LEXIS 10 (2011)
    The Superior Court addressed the factors to be considered in analyzing a claim for attorney’s fees in custody cases and awarded fees to the parent who prevailed in the custody case.
  • Wilson v. Craig, 987 A.2d 1160 (D.C. 2010)
    The Court of Appeals addressed challenges to the trial court’s custody and child support rulings. On custody, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that the increase in the parental conflict and its negative impact on the children was an unforeseen substantial and material change in circumstances warranting modification of the parties’ custody agreement and an award of sole custody to one parent. On child support, it affirmed the trial court’s decision to sua sponte modify child support in light of the change in custody.
  • Samuel v. Person, 2010 D.C. Super. LEXIS 1 (2010)
    The Superior Court reviewed the case law, state statutes and social science research and addressed the additional factors that should be considered when one parent is seeking to relocate with the child against the wishes of the other parent. The Court of Appeals adopted this framework in Estopina v. O’Brian, 68 A.3d 790 (D.C. 2013).
  • Lasche v. Levin, 26 A.3d 717 (D.C. 2011), 977 A.2d 361 (D.C. 2009)
    At issue was whether non-periodic distributions from the corpus of a trust should be included as income in calculating child support. The Court of Appeals held that such distributions are not income for purposes of calculating child support. The trial court may, however, consider them as a factor in departing from the child support guideline.
  • Prisco v. Stroup, 947 A.2d 455 (D.C. 2008)
    The primary issue was whether a 14% increase in the paying parent’s income constituted a substantial and material change in his ability to pay and thus warranted an upward modification of the child support amount. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s determination that the increase alone was not a sufficient change in the ability to pay because he was paying a number of other expenses for the children, including private school tuition, a nanny and medical expenses, which themselves were increasing.  In addition, the children’s needs were being met consistent with the parent’s lifestyle.