Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Pamela J. (Tower) Weinle appealed a divorce judgment from the District Court (Skowhegan), which divided marital property and awarded Alan R. Tower spousal support and attorney fees. Weinle contested the spousal support, property distribution, and attorney fees. Tower died after the judgment and during the appeal process.The District Court awarded Tower $2,000 per month in general spousal support, $500 per month in reimbursement spousal support, and $12,325 in attorney fees. The court found that Weinle had engaged in economic misconduct by purchasing and selling property without Tower's knowledge and failing to comply with discovery obligations, which increased litigation costs. The court also noted that Weinle had a substantial income and financial resources, while Tower had limited income and poor health.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court overruled its previous decision in Panter v. Panter, which required dismissal of an appeal if a party died during its pendency. The court held that the death of a party does not moot the appeal regarding property rights. The court affirmed the District Court's judgment, finding no error in the spousal support award, property distribution, or attorney fees. The court noted that the spousal support obligation ceased upon Tower's death, as the divorce judgment did not specify that the support survived the death of either party. View "Weinle v. Estate of Tower" on Justia Law

Robin Niceta, a former caseworker with the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services, was assigned to investigate allegations of child abuse against Paul Berryman. Niceta allegedly made false statements during the investigation and custody proceedings, which led to the removal of Berryman’s daughters from his custody for a year and a half. After the Berrymans regained custody, they sued Niceta under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming her conduct violated their procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Niceta’s motion to dismiss the claim, rejecting her assertions of qualified immunity and absolute testimonial immunity for statements made at a custody hearing. Niceta then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed with the district court that Niceta was not entitled to qualified immunity because she failed to adequately raise the defense. However, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court regarding absolute testimonial immunity. The court held that Niceta is entitled to absolute immunity for statements made during her testimony at the custody hearing but not for statements made outside of that hearing.The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for the district court to determine whether any of the Berrymans’ claims could survive without considering Niceta’s testimonial statements made at the custody hearing. View "Berryman v. Niceta" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Robert and Etleva Stratoberdha, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against Clements Properties, LLC, Robert P. Rucando, and officials from the Town of Portsmouth. They alleged that Clements Properties caused continuous trespass by creating an illegal drainage structure, Rucando failed to disclose flooding issues when selling the property, and the Town neglected to enforce ordinances. During the prolonged litigation, Etleva filed for divorce, and the Family Court issued orders related to the sale of the marital home and the settlement of the Superior Court action.The Family Court appointed a Commissioner to sell the marital home and authorized her to settle the Superior Court action. Robert did not appeal these orders. The Family Court later approved a settlement agreement where Clements Properties would buy the marital home for $870,000, and the Town would pay $75,000 in damages. The Family Court's orders and the settlement agreement were incorporated into the interlocutory decision pending entry of final judgment in the divorce case. Robert's appeal of this decision was dismissed as untimely.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's order approving the settlement agreement. The Court held that the Family Court's orders were final and could not be challenged in the Superior Court. The Superior Court's approval of the settlement agreement was a ministerial act based on the Family Court's final decrees. The Court found no merit in Robert's arguments and concluded that the Superior Court properly relied on the Family Court's orders. View "Stratoberdhav. Clements Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

C.C. is the mother of B.F. and I.F. In November 2021, she left the children with their paternal uncle, who provided a stable home. In November 2022, the children came under the protective custody of the Cass County Human Service Zone (CHSZ) due to concerns of parental abandonment. The whereabouts of A.F., the father, were unknown. In March 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as needing protection and placed them in CHSZ custody for nine months, finding aggravating factors and adopting a reunification plan. In December 2023, CHSZ filed a petition to terminate C.C.'s parental rights but later amended it to extend CHSZ custody for nine months due to C.C.'s progress. In February 2024, the court granted CHSZ custody for an additional nine months with concurrent plans of reunification and termination.In October 2024, CHSZ petitioned to terminate C.C. and A.F.'s parental rights, citing C.C.'s failure to maintain progress on the reunification plan. C.C. attended the initial hearing and a status conference in December 2024 but failed to attend the February 2025 status conference. The court found C.C. and A.F. in default and terminated their parental rights, noting C.C.'s continued drug use, failure to secure stable housing and employment, and lack of consistent participation in visitations and services.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's order. The court held that the juvenile court did not err in finding C.C. in default and that the evidence supported the termination of parental rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying C.C.'s motion to vacate the default judgment and concluded that the termination did not violate C.C.'s constitutional due process rights. View "Interest of B.F." on Justia Law

Elizabeth Sanda and Derek Sanda were married in 2016, having started dating in 2014. Elizabeth brought significant assets into the marriage, including trusts and future inheritances protected by a premarital agreement, while Derek had a negative net worth. During the marriage, Elizabeth used her inheritance to fund various expenses, including a home down payment, mortgage payments, and Derek's business operations. Derek contributed through home renovations and his carpentry business, which was not highly profitable. The couple lived beyond their means, relying heavily on Elizabeth's inheritance.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Jackson J. Lofgren, handled the divorce proceedings. The court issued an interim order in February 2024, granting Elizabeth exclusive use of the marital home and her vehicle, while Derek was awarded his vehicle. During the trial, disputes arose over the classification of certain assets and debts, including a vehicle trade and attorney's fees. The court found that Derek improperly dissipated marital property by trading a vehicle without approval and determined that Elizabeth's inheritance, though used during the marriage, should be considered in the property division.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the property division was equitable. The court emphasized the origin of Elizabeth's inheritance and the couple's financial conduct during the marriage. The court also upheld the district court's decisions regarding the valuation date, classification of assets, and responsibility for attorney's fees. The judgment awarded Elizabeth a larger share of the marital estate, with an additional payment to Derek to achieve equity. View "Sanda v. Sanda" on Justia Law

Kristina Toppenberg appealed a district court order that granted Zach Toppenberg’s motion to reduce his child support obligation. Zach was originally ordered to pay $1,814 per month based on an annual income of $103,200. In 2023, Zach moved to Arizona, earning $21 per hour at a construction company. He filed a motion to amend his child support obligation, providing his 2023 tax return and recent paystubs. The district court recalculated his income to $43,680 annually and reduced his child support to $875 per month.The district court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, granted Zach’s motion, finding his change in employment was not for the purpose of reducing his child support obligation. The court used his current earnings to calculate the new support amount. Kristina appealed, arguing the modification was inappropriate and the calculation was incorrect, citing unreported income and gifts from Zach’s parents.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decision to grant the motion to amend child support, finding no clear error in the determination that Zach’s employment change was not to reduce his obligation. However, the Supreme Court found the district court erred in not including $30,000 in gifts and $24,000 of unreported income in Zach’s gross income. The court held that these amounts should have been considered in calculating his net income for child support purposes.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s decision to amend the child support obligation but reversed and remanded the case for recalculation of Zach’s net income, including the omitted gifts and unreported income. View "Toppenberg v. Toppenberg" on Justia Law

The case involves siblings E.G., I.G., and K.G., who were found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court due to allegations of sexual abuse by their stepfather, Erick C. E.G., aged 11, reported the abuse after a school assembly on safety and boundaries. She disclosed that Erick C. had sexually abused her multiple times since she was six years old. E.G. provided detailed accounts of the abuse to her school counselor, police, and social workers. Despite initially denying the abuse to her mother, E.G. later recanted her allegations, claiming they were dreams influenced by movies her parents watched.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging the children came under the court's jurisdiction due to Erick C.'s sexual abuse of E.G. and the risk it posed to her siblings. The juvenile court ordered the children released to their mother, with Erick C. required to stay away from E.G. During the investigation, E.G. recanted her allegations, influenced by family members who did not believe her and pressured her to change her story.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's findings, noting E.G.'s consistent and detailed reports of abuse to multiple individuals over time. The court determined that E.G.'s recantation lacked credibility due to family pressure and inconsistent reasons for recanting. The court upheld the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and the decision to declare the children dependents of the court, removing them from Erick C. and releasing them to their mother. The appeal by Erick C. was affirmed, and the court terminated jurisdiction with an exit order granting joint physical and legal custody to the parents. View "In re E.G." on Justia Law

James Michael Kahl (James) and Jennifer June Sperano (Jennifer) have a minor daughter, M.A.K., born in May 2019. James filed a dissolution and parenting plan action in January 2020, which continued as a parenting plan matter after the parties agreed they were never married. Initially residing in Gardiner, Montana, both parents moved to Red Lodge, Montana, before separating. Jennifer returned to Gardiner and filed her own petition for a parenting plan. The Park County District Court transferred the case to the Carbon County District Court.At a February 2020 hearing, James requested supervised visitation for Jennifer due to her alleged chemical dependency issues, while Jennifer requested primary custody and supervised visitation for James, citing his allegedly abusive behavior. The District Court denied both requests for supervised visitation and ordered alternating weekly custody. In fall 2024, with M.A.K. starting school, both parents requested amended parenting plans. The District Court found both Red Lodge and Gardiner suitable for M.A.K. and ultimately granted Jennifer primary custody during the school year, with James having alternating weekends and extended summer parenting time.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. James raised four issues on appeal: the admissibility of Judge Brenda R. Gilbert's testimony, the District Court's decision not to follow the Guardian Ad Litem's (GAL) recommendation, an alleged factual error regarding Jennifer's employment, and the workability of the parenting plan. The Court found no error in admitting Judge Gilbert's testimony, as she was not the presiding judge and provided relevant testimony. The Court also held that the District Court properly evaluated the GAL's recommendations and found substantial evidence supporting the District Court's findings regarding Jennifer's employment and the parenting plan's workability. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision. View "Marriage of: Kahl & Sperano" on Justia Law

A mother appealed the July 2024 orders of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, which awarded guardianship of her children, I.R.S. and M.W.A.H., to non-kinship, non-Native American foster parents. The children were removed from the mother's home due to her illicit drug use and associated safety concerns. I.R.S. is a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, triggering the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Department initially placed I.R.S. with the mother's sister (Aunt), but later removed him due to allegations of physical abuse. The mother did not object to the new placement at the time. M.W.A.H. was born in September 2022 and was also removed from the mother's custody due to her continued issues. Both children were placed with a non-kinship, non-Native American foster family.The District Court adjudicated both children as youths in need of care and extended temporary custody to the Department. The mother did not contest these adjudications. The Department later petitioned for guardianship, which the mother initially contested but later approved of the placement. However, she changed her mind multiple times during the proceedings. The Aunt filed a motion to intervene, asserting her right under ICWA, but later withdrew her motion and was deemed an "interested person."The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decisions. The court held that the mother was not denied her right to counsel, as she had stipulated to the adjudication and did not pursue a transfer to tribal court. The court also found that the District Court did not err in failing to treat the mother's questions about transferring her case to tribal court as a motion to transfer. Additionally, the court concluded that the District Court did not erroneously deny the Aunt's motion to intervene, as she withdrew her motion. Finally, the court held that the District Court correctly concluded that good cause existed to deviate from ICWA placement preferences, as the Department had made diligent efforts to find a suitable ICWA-preferred placement but found none. View "In re I.R.S. & M.W.A.H." on Justia Law

A married couple, with three young children, filed for divorce. The mother requested primary custody, pendente lite child support, and alimony, while the father requested primary custody and child support. A family magistrate found both parents capable of earning significant income and denied the mother's request for pendente lite child support and alimony, recommending shared custody and shared payment of the mortgage and utilities for the marital home.The Circuit Court for Howard County adopted the magistrate's recommendations and denied the mother's exceptions to the magistrate's report. The mother appealed, citing Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-303(3)(v), which allows appeals from interlocutory orders for the payment of money.The Appellate Court of Maryland dismissed the appeal, holding that an interlocutory order denying pendente lite child support and alimony is not appealable under CJ § 12-303(3)(v) because it does not direct the payment of money. The mother then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland for a writ of certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment, holding that CJ § 12-303(3)(v) authorizes appeals only from interlocutory orders that direct the payment of money, not from orders denying such requests. The Court concluded that the legislative history and case law support this interpretation, emphasizing that the statute's plain language does not permit appeals from orders denying the payment of money. View "Adelakun v. Adelakun" on Justia Law