Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A woman who had been in a long-term romantic relationship with a child's legal mother sought joint legal custody and parenting time under Georgia's Equitable Caregiver Statute, OCGA § 19-7-3.1, after the couple broke up. The statute allows a non-parent to seek custody or visitation rights if they have undertaken a parental role and developed a bonded and dependent relationship with the child, supported by a parent. The child's mother challenged the constitutionality of the statute and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's order.The Superior Court granted the woman's request for equitable caregiver status, finding that she had established a bonded and dependent relationship with the child and that the child would suffer long-term emotional harm without continued contact. The court awarded joint legal custody and parenting time to the woman, despite the mother's objections.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Equitable Caregiver Statute, particularly regarding the fundamental right of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children. The court noted that any waiver of this constitutional right must be knowing and voluntary, and that conduct prior to the statute's effective date could not constitute such a waiver. The court concluded that the statute does not authorize trial courts to confer equitable caregiver status based on conduct by the legal parent that took place before the statute's effective date.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's order, holding that the Equitable Caregiver Statute does not apply to parental conduct occurring before its effective date. The court did not resolve the constitutional questions but based its decision on statutory construction and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. View "DIAS v. BOONE" on Justia Law

A mother and father, who married in December 2021 and separated a year later, have two children (twins). The father also has three children from a previous marriage. After their separation, the mother filed for divorce, and the case went to trial to resolve issues of custody, child support, and property division. The district court granted the divorce, determined custody, ordered the father to pay child support, and divided the property.The district court awarded the parents alternating-week custody of the twins, differing from the holiday schedule for the father's children from his previous marriage. The court also granted the mother final decision-making authority regarding the twins. The father was ordered to pay child support based on the mother's income, which the court calculated using her tax returns and other financial documents. The court also divided the equity in the marital home, using an appraised value from October 2023 and the mortgage obligation from December 2022.The father appealed to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, contesting the holiday visitation schedule, the mother's final decision-making authority, the calculation of the mother's income for child support, and the division of the home equity. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court's decisions for abuse of discretion.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decisions. It found that the holiday visitation schedule, while different from the father's schedule with his other children, was not an abuse of discretion. The court also upheld the decision to grant the mother final decision-making authority, noting that the district court adequately explained its reasoning. The calculation of the mother's income for child support was supported by sufficient evidence, and the division of the home equity was reasonable given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court's decisions were within the bounds of reason and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. View "Amadio v. Amadio" on Justia Law

A young adult with intellectual and developmental disabilities, referred to as G.J.F., moved to Alaska in 2021 and was referred by a homeless shelter to Volunteers of America Alaska (VOA), a nonprofit organization. VOA provided intensive case management support, including housing assistance and help with applying for government benefits. Despite initial resistance from G.J.F., a consistent therapeutic relationship was eventually established. VOA petitioned the superior court to appoint the Public Guardian as a full guardian for G.J.F., arguing that less restrictive alternatives were not feasible or adequate to meet G.J.F.'s needs.The superior court appointed a visitor and scheduled a hearing. The visitor's report and a neuropsychological evaluation indicated that G.J.F. had multiple mental health diagnoses and significant difficulties with decision-making and daily living tasks. The master recommended a full guardianship, but the Public Guardian objected, leading to an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, VOA staff testified about the extensive support they provided to G.J.F. and the limitations of their services. The court found that VOA's services were not sustainable and that G.J.F. needed decision-making support that only a full guardian could provide.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's order appointing the Public Guardian as a full guardian for G.J.F. The court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining that less restrictive alternatives were not feasible or adequate to meet G.J.F.'s needs. The court found that the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting the need for a full guardianship, given G.J.F.'s significant vulnerabilities and the limitations of VOA's support. The court also noted that relying on the visitor's report, which was not admitted into evidence, was harmless error because the same information was provided through other evidence. View "In the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of G.J.F" on Justia Law

Dawn Maynor and Timothy Golden, who resided together in Alaska, moved to Oklahoma and then Louisiana due to Timothy's military transfers. They married in Oklahoma in 2017 and had a child in Louisiana in February 2018. The couple separated shortly after the child's birth, and in May 2018, they filed for dissolution of their marriage in Alaska, claiming Alaska residency despite living in Illinois and Louisiana. The superior court in Alaska granted the dissolution in August 2018, including a custody order giving Dawn primary physical custody and shared legal custody.Timothy later moved back to Alaska and, in September 2023, filed a motion to modify the custody arrangement, seeking joint physical custody. Dawn did not oppose this motion but instead filed a motion for relief from the 2018 custody order, arguing that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to decide child custody initially. The superior court denied Dawn's motion, concluding that Alaska was the child's home state due to the parents' claimed residency and the child's temporary absence from Alaska.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and determined that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make the initial child custody determination. The court found that the child had never lived in Alaska, and Louisiana was the child's home state within six months before the commencement of the dissolution proceedings. Since Louisiana had jurisdiction and did not decline it, the superior court in Alaska could not assert jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed the superior court's denial of Dawn's motion for relief from judgment and vacated the original custody order due to the lack of jurisdiction. View "Maynor v. Golden" on Justia Law

Peter and Julia Chapman married in 2007 and have one minor child. Julia filed for legal separation in 2018, and they agreed to share custody and calculate child support based on their incomes. In July 2020, they stipulated that Peter would pay $500 per month in child support through December 2020, with modifications based on their incomes starting January 2021. The court adopted this stipulation. In April 2021, Peter's child support obligation was set at $31.35 per month based on his 2020 income of $45,000.Julia moved to modify child support in May 2022, believing Peter's income had increased due to his acquisition of new businesses and the creation of the Cephas Trust. Peter opposed the modification, arguing there was no proof of increased income. The court ordered Peter to provide proof of income, revealing his 2021 adjusted gross income was $861,382. Julia pursued the modification, arguing Peter's income justified a higher child support obligation.The Superior Court of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, held an evidentiary hearing. Peter testified that his primary income was his salary from Alaska Auto Rentals (AAR), and the remaining income was from businesses in the Cephas Trust, which he controlled but chose not to draw from. The court found that Peter had access to the trust's income and was underreporting his income by taking a low salary. The court imputed income to Peter based on the trust's earnings and set his child support obligation at $1,167.35 per month, using the income cap of $126,000.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the superior court did not err in finding a material change of circumstances or abuse its discretion by imputing income to Peter. The court concluded that Peter's control over the trust and its income justified the increased child support obligation. View "Chapman v. Chapman" on Justia Law

B.V. and L.T. are the parents of two children, B.V. and B.V. The children were removed from their home in February 2021 after being left unattended at a crime scene for 13 hours. B.V. was arrested for attempted murder and burglary, and L.T. could not be located. A temporary custody order was issued to the Mountain Lakes Human Service Zone. B.V. was later convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, with an estimated release date in January 2030. L.T. has not had contact with the Zone since the termination of parental rights petition was filed.The children were adjudicated as needing protection in October 2021, and a 12-month custody order was issued to the Zone. A permanency hearing in November 2022 extended the custody order by six months. The children were taken to Arizona by their maternal aunt in April 2023, but the placement was unsuccessful, and they returned to North Dakota in September 2023. L.T. sporadically attempted visitation but lost contact with the Zone in February 2024. B.V. had minimal contact with the Zone and did not engage in the services offered.The Juvenile Court of Rolette County terminated B.V. and L.T.'s parental rights on October 18, 2024. B.V. appealed, arguing that the Zone did not make active efforts to prevent the breakup of his Indian family as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody by B.V. would likely result in serious harm to the children.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the termination of B.V.'s parental rights. The court found that the Zone made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family, including offering supervised visits and conducting relative searches. The court also found that continued custody by B.V. would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children, supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness. View "Interest of B.V." on Justia Law

Kristine Gail Walden and Shay Alan Walden were married in April 2016 and separated in June 2020. Kristine initiated divorce proceedings in September 2022. At the time of the trial in December 2023, Kristine was 54 and worked part-time, while Shay, 53, was self-employed. The district court heard testimony about their assets, debts, and the conduct leading to the breakdown of their marriage, including domestic violence by Shay that resulted in a permanent eye injury to Kristine. The court divided the marital property and debt, ordered Shay to pay spousal support of $1,000 per month for seven years, property payments totaling $43,587, and attorney’s fees of $8,350. Shay was also assigned a debt of $35,433.66 incurred after the divorce proceedings began.The district court awarded spousal support based on the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, considering the parties' ages, earning abilities, health, and financial circumstances. The court found Kristine had a monthly income of $2,400 and expenses of $6,400, while Shay had a gross monthly income of $12,500 and expenses of $5,017. The court concluded Kristine needed spousal support and Shay had the ability to pay without undue hardship. Shay’s argument that the court deviated from statutory limits for spousal support was dismissed as the applicable version of the statute was correctly applied.The court’s property and debt distribution was found to be equitable, considering the short-term nature of the marriage and the contributions of each party. Shay’s arguments against the distribution of the marital home’s equity and Kristine’s medical debt were rejected. The court’s decision to assign Shay the debt incurred after the divorce proceedings was also upheld.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the court did not clearly err in its findings and that the award of attorney’s fees was justified based on Shay’s actions that increased the costs of the proceedings. View "Walden v. Walden" on Justia Law

Brett Kingstone and Trisa Tedrow Kingstone were married in Florida in July 2020 and have one minor child, L.R.K., born in 2021, who has hemophilia, Fragile X syndrome, and developmental and speech delays. The couple separated in August 2022, and Brett initiated a divorce action in Florida and a child custody action in North Dakota in March 2023. The Florida court granted the divorce in August 2023, but did not address child-related issues. In December 2023, the North Dakota district court awarded Trisa primary residential responsibility for L.R.K. and set Brett's child support at $5,000 per month, including an upward deviation of $1,500.Brett Kingstone appealed, arguing the district court erred in several aspects, including reliance on expert testimony, calculation of his net income, the upward deviation of child support, and refusal to amend the judgment. The district court had denied Brett's motion to amend the judgment but clarified the exchange location for L.R.K. would be at the child's home unless mutually agreed otherwise.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the expert witness to determine Brett's income, including income from irrevocable trusts and recurring capital gains. However, the Supreme Court found the district court's findings insufficient to support the upward deviation in child support under the guidelines and remanded for additional findings and redetermination. The Supreme Court also directed the district court to reconsider the amount of the life insurance policy based on the redetermined child support obligation. The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the exchange provisions for L.R.K. and the requirement for Brett to maintain a life insurance policy for the child. View "Kingstone v. Kingstone" on Justia Law

Bryan Carrier and Elizabeth Allmendinger were involved in a relationship that resulted in the birth of a child in 2017. In April 2018, the district court established Carrier’s child support obligation at $3,500 per month. Carrier had two more children after this judgment. In April 2023, the State of North Dakota filed a motion to amend the judgment to reduce Carrier’s child support obligation based on his income information, which Carrier supported. Allmendinger requested an evidentiary hearing and a continuance for discovery.The District Court of Burleigh County held multiple evidentiary hearings on the State’s motion. The State requested a reduction in child support to $1,200 per month from May 2023 and $1,168 per month from January 2024. Carrier agreed with the State’s calculations, while Allmendinger opposed the motion, proposing a higher amount. In May 2024, the district court denied the State’s motion, finding the information provided by the State and Carrier unreliable. However, the court allowed for a child support calculation reduced for multiple families based on the original 2018 financial information. Allmendinger submitted a proposed amended judgment, which the court adopted, setting Carrier’s obligation at $3,278 per month starting June 1, 2024.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. Carrier argued that the district court erred in dismissing the motion to modify child support, claiming the court wrongly found the information provided unreliable. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, as evidence supported the court’s determination that Carrier was evasive and untruthful about his financial information. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, denying the motion to modify child support. Allmendinger’s request for attorney’s fees was denied, as the appeal was not deemed frivolous. View "State v. Carrier" on Justia Law

Jared Peterka, a neighbor and tenant of John and Irene Janda, assumed the lease of their farmland in 2012. The lease was renewed every three years, and in 2019, a right of first refusal for Peterka to purchase the land was added. In October 2018, the Jandas established a living trust and conveyed the property into it, with their daughters as residuary beneficiaries. In June 2021, the Jandas and Peterka executed an option to purchase the property. Shortly after, guardianship proceedings were initiated, and the Jandas were found incapacitated. The guardians rescinded the option to purchase.Peterka filed a complaint for declaratory judgment to validate the option to purchase. The Defendants counterclaimed, arguing the option was the result of undue influence and that the Jandas lacked capacity. After a four-day bench trial, the District Court of Traill County found the option to purchase was facially valid and not a product of undue influence. However, it ruled the option was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas' lack of capacity and dismissed Peterka’s complaint.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Peterka argued the district court erred in its findings on capacity. The Supreme Court clarified that the capacity to enter into a contract and the capacity under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 are distinct. The court found the district court did not misstate the law and its findings were supported by evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the option to purchase was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas being of unsound mind but not entirely without understanding. View "Peterka v. Janda" on Justia Law