Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

After the dissolution of a domestic partnership, a dispute arose between the former partners over shared custody and visitation of a pet dog, Kyra. The parties’ initial judgment did not address pet ownership. When one partner sought a court order for shared custody and visitation, the other, represented by her cousin acting as counsel, opposed the request and cited fictitious case authorities purporting to establish legal standards for pet custody based on the emotional well-being and stability of the parties. These fabricated authorities were also referenced in declarations and written submissions to the court. Both parties’ counsel failed to verify the authenticity of the cases cited.The Superior Court of San Diego County held a hearing, took live testimony from both parties, and ultimately denied the request for pet custody and visitation. The court’s written order, which was drafted and submitted by counsel for the party seeking custody, cited the same fictitious cases. No objection to the use of fake authorities was raised at that time. On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court’s reliance on non-existent legal authority required reversal and sought clarification of the applicable standard under Family Code section 2605. The appellate record did not include a transcript or settled statement of the hearing.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the order. The court held that although it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to rely on fabricated legal authorities, the appellant forfeited this claim by drafting and submitting the challenged order and failing to alert the court to the error. The court further found that the appellant failed to provide an adequate appellate record to support his arguments regarding legal standards for pet custody. Additionally, the appellate court imposed $5,000 in sanctions on respondent’s counsel for knowingly and repeatedly submitting fictitious legal citations, and ordered reporting of this misconduct to the State Bar of California. View "In re: Domestic Partnership of Campos & Munoz" on Justia Law

In this case, a divorced couple disputed the calculation of child support payments. The father was originally ordered to pay child support based on his salary and bonuses, with restricted stock units (RSUs) he received from his employer excluded as income but divided as marital property. After their divorce, the father began selling his RSUs, which he had not done during the marriage. The mother then sought to modify the child support order, arguing that the RSU sales represented a material change in circumstances and that future RSU income should be considered for child support purposes.After the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed earlier appeals for lack of jurisdiction, the mother filed a complaint to modify child support in the District Court for Douglas County. A child support referee found that the father’s post-divorce sales of RSUs constituted a material change in circumstances, justifying a recalculation of child support. The referee included the RSU income, along with salary and bonuses, in determining the father’s income, and recommended increasing the child support payments. The referee also recommended that the modification be applied retroactively to a date later than the mother requested and that both parties pay their own attorney fees. The district court adopted these recommendations in full.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the father’s sale of RSUs after the divorce was a material change in circumstances not contemplated in the original decree, making claim and issue preclusion doctrines inapplicable. The Supreme Court also found no abuse of discretion in including RSU income, averaging bonus payments, accounting for taxes, or in the district court’s decisions regarding retroactivity and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Kingston v. Kingston" on Justia Law

A married couple, both Jehovah’s Witnesses, separated after over twenty years together and had three children. In February 2023, Marcie filed for legal separation, later amending the petition to seek dissolution of marriage. Michael filed for custody and support, and both parties requested domestic violence restraining orders (DVRO) against each other. Multiple disputes arose during the proceedings, including issues over Michael’s refusal to stipulate to Marcie’s amendment of her petition, delays and deficiencies in Michael’s disclosure and discovery responses, and allegations of coercive control and harassment by both parties. Michael was found to have repeatedly accessed Marcie’s electronic accounts, tracked her vehicle, and appeared uninvited at her residence, while Marcie was found to have entered the former family home without permission, looked into Michael’s car, and appeared at a beach near Michael’s residence.The Superior Court of Orange County issued several orders: monetary sanctions against Michael under Family Code section 271 for refusing to stipulate to Marcie’s amendment, sanctions under section 2107(c) and Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030 and 2031.310(h) for disclosure and discovery violations, and mutual DVROs requiring both parties to attend anger management programs. Both Marcie and Michael appealed, challenging the sanctions and the DVROs.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, held that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions on Michael under section 271 solely for refusing to stipulate to Marcie’s amendment of her petition, and reversed that sanction. The Court affirmed sanctions against Michael under section 2107(c) and Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030 and 2031.310(h). The DVRO against Michael was affirmed, but the mutual DVRO against Marcie was reversed due to insufficient evidence and failure to conduct the required statutory analysis. The order requiring Marcie to attend anger management was also reversed. View "In re Marriage of Hoch" on Justia Law

After a divorce, a former husband and wife entered into a settlement agreement incorporated into their dissolution decree, in which the wife was awarded the marital home and agreed to assume responsibility for a specific home-related debt—a loan with Wells Fargo. The agreement also provided that the husband could seek damages for any harm to his credit if payments were not made on time. Several years later, the wife stopped making payments on the loan and filed for bankruptcy, after which the debt to Wells Fargo was ultimately discharged. The husband did not make any loan payments himself and later filed a contempt petition, claiming that the wife’s failure to pay the loan damaged his credit and caused him financial losses, including increased interest on another loan and a lost opportunity to secure a home-construction loan.The Marion Superior Court held a hearing and found the wife in contempt for willfully failing to pay the loan but did not award the husband damages. The court found the alleged damages to be speculative and unproven due to insufficient supporting evidence. The husband appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals partially reversed, instructing the trial court to award damages. However, the appellate opinion was not certified, and the trial court nevertheless issued a revised order in line with the appellate mandate.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the trial court did not clearly err in declining to award damages, as the husband’s evidence of financial harm was speculative and inadequately supported. The Court further held that the trial court’s revised order was void because it was issued while the appeal was pending and before the appellate opinion was certified. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s original order and reminded lower courts and parties not to act based on uncertified appellate opinions. View "Norris v. Norris" on Justia Law

A child, J.H., was born to her biological mother and father in 2014. After the parents separated, they initially shared custody, but the mother was later awarded primary physical custody. In 2020, after allegations of the mother’s drug use and findings of abuse or neglect, the Tazewell County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court issued a protective order restricting the mother’s contact with J.H. and ultimately revoked her visitation rights due to noncompliance with court-ordered drug screenings. The mother later sought to amend the no contact order, but her efforts to do so were delayed and not diligently pursued.While the mother’s motion regarding visitation was pending, the child’s stepmother and father filed a petition in the Tazewell County Circuit Court for the stepmother to adopt J.H. without the mother’s consent, citing Virginia Code § 63.2-1202(H), which eliminates the need for a birth parent’s consent if, without just cause, the parent has neither visited nor contacted the child for six months prior to the adoption petition. The circuit court found that the mother had neither visited nor contacted J.H. during the relevant period and that this lack of contact was without just cause, as it resulted from her own conduct and insufficient efforts to modify the restrictive order. The circuit court approved the adoption.The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, interpreting “just cause” under Code § 63.2-1202(H) to mean circumstances beyond the parent’s control, and agreeing that the mother’s own actions led to the no contact order. The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding the absence of just cause. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the mother’s consent was not required for the adoption to proceed. View "Perkins v. Howington" on Justia Law

After a five-year marriage, a couple divorced and agreed on a parenting plan that divided time with their daughter, A.M. Following the divorce, Melissa, the mother, learned that her older daughter from a previous marriage accused Graham, her ex-husband, of sexually abusing her in 2019. Melissa then sought to modify the parenting plan to prevent Graham from having unsupervised visits with A.M., fearing for her safety. She also obtained a temporary order of protection barring Graham from contact with her older daughter and with A.M. for a limited period.The Fifth Judicial District Court initially granted Melissa’s request for a temporary supervised visitation arrangement. However, after a hearing at which key witnesses testified, including Melissa, Graham, and E.M. (another daughter), but not A.R.M. (the alleged victim), the District Court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude by a preponderance that Graham had abused Melissa’s daughters or posed a danger to A.M. The court made minor amendments to the parenting plan, such as ordering counseling for A.M. and regulating exchanges and communications, but reinstated Graham’s right to unsupervised parenting time with A.M., vacating the interim supervised plan.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in finding insufficient evidence of risk to A.M. and in conducting the hearing with the judge appearing remotely via videoconference. The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in determining that Melissa failed to meet her heavy burden for modifying the parenting plan. The Court further held that Melissa did not preserve her procedural objection to the judge’s remote appearance and that no manifest injustice or structural error occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s order. View "In re Marriage of Murphy" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two former domestic partners over the custody and visitation of a pet dog following the dissolution of their partnership. Initially, the judgment dissolving their partnership did not address the ownership or custody of pets. Two years later, one party sought shared custody and visitation of the dog, filing a formal request under California Family Code section 2605. The other party, represented by her cousin, opposed the request, citing purported legal precedents that supported considering the emotional well-being and stability of the parties in pet custody disputes.The Superior Court of San Diego County held a hearing and ultimately denied the request for shared custody and visitation. The written order, which cited the fictional cases provided by the parties, was drafted and submitted by the appellant’s own counsel and signed by the court. The order relied on these fake cases to justify denying the request, emphasizing the mental stability of the parties and the lack of a substantial relationship between the petitioner and the dog. The appellant did not object to the use of these fictitious authorities in the order at the trial court level.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that it was an abuse of discretion for the family court to rely on fictitious case authorities, but determined that the appellant had forfeited this claim by drafting and submitting the order with these citations and failing to object. The court also found that the appellant failed to provide an adequate appellate record for review of his proposed legal standard for pet custody under section 2605. The appellate court affirmed the order and imposed $5,000 in sanctions on respondent’s counsel for citing and persisting in reliance on fabricated legal authorities. View "In re Domestic Partnership of Campos & Nunoz" on Justia Law

A young child, X.R., was left in the care of her maternal aunt, H.R., after her mother, J.R., struggled with substance abuse. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) initiated abuse and neglect proceedings that led to the termination of J.R.’s parental rights. During these proceedings, R.S. was identified as X.R.’s biological father. R.S. was adjudicated as an abusing parent due to lack of appropriate housing, but he successfully completed a court-ordered improvement period, demonstrating his ability to provide a stable environment. H.R. was recognized as X.R.’s psychological parent, having cared for her since birth.Following R.S.'s improvement period, the Circuit Court of Mason County ordered a parenting plan allocating equal custody and decision-making authority over X.R. to both R.S. and H.R., and dismissed the case. R.S. appealed, arguing that the plan violated his fundamental rights as a fit natural parent.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and determined that, because R.S. had completed his improvement period and was not found to be unfit at the time of the final order, his parental rights were intact and paramount. The court found that the circuit court erred in granting H.R. equal custody and decision-making authority based solely on the child’s best interests, without a finding of parental unfitness or other justification that would overcome the natural parent’s rights.Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the parenting plan granting equal custody and decision-making to H.R., vacated the remainder of the plan and the dismissal order, and remanded the case with instructions. The circuit court was directed to determine the scope of continued association between X.R. and H.R., giving special weight to the father’s preferences while also considering the child’s best interests. View "In re X.R." on Justia Law

A married couple formed a business, Outkast Environmental, LLC, during their marriage, which was classified as community property. After their divorce was finalized in October 2019, Mr. Reis formed a new company, Outkast Industrial Group, LLC, in February 2020, which operated in a similar field. Disputes arose during the partition of their community property, with Ms. Reis claiming that Outkast Industrial should also be considered community property. She alleged that community funds were used to start the new business and that resources from the original company were diverted to the new entity. There was conflicting testimony regarding the source of funds and use of business assets.The 34th Judicial District Court (St. Bernard Parish) first found that Outkast Industrial was community property, relying on prior appellate decisions that treated new businesses as “substitute corporations” for former community businesses when a spouse transfers value or operations. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed this classification, finding no manifest error in the trial court’s assessment of credibility and the facts surrounding the formation and funding of Outkast Industrial.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and concluded that the lower courts erred by applying the concept of a “substitute corporation,” which the Supreme Court found has no basis in Louisiana law. The Supreme Court held that property classification is fixed at the time of acquisition; since Outkast Industrial was formed after termination of the community regime, it is Mr. Reis’s separate property. The Court distinguished between classification issues and potential claims for mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duty, which may entitle Ms. Reis to other remedies but do not change the classification of the new company. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "REIS VS. REIS" on Justia Law

A biological father filed a petition to establish paternity and seek custody of a minor child born to the mother approximately 100 days after the termination of her marriage. Due to the timing, the child was legally presumed to be the offspring of the former husband. The biological father asserted he had acted as the child’s parent since birth, providing financial support, living with the child, and being named on the birth certificate. The mother challenged his petition by claiming it was time-barred under Louisiana Civil Code article 198, which restricts actions to establish paternity when a presumed father exists to within one year of the child's birth. The presumed father filed a petition to disavow paternity, stating he was not involved with the mother at the relevant time and had no relationship with the child.The Juvenile Court for the Parish of Lafayette held a hearing on the mother's exceptions and ruled that Article 198 was unconstitutional as applied to the facts, finding that its application would sever an existing parental relationship and deprive the child of a father. The court denied the mother's exceptions and ruled the biological father had a right to proceed. The mother sought supervisory review, which the Court of Appeal denied. She then filed a writ application to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the constitutionality of Article 198 de novo. It held that, under these particular circumstances, the biological father had established a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parenting his child, and Article 198’s one-year limitation, as applied here, violated his due process rights under both the Louisiana and United States Constitutions. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, declaring Article 198 unconstitutional as applied to this case. View "DAVIDSON VS. HARDY" on Justia Law