Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A.L. (Mother) appealed the juvenile court's decision to assume dependency jurisdiction over her one-year-old daughter, Minor, following a single-vehicle drunk driving accident in which Minor suffered a severe brain injury. Mother also contested the court's decision to require monitored visitation. The accident occurred after Mother consumed alcohol at a party and drove at high speeds, resulting in a crash that caused significant injuries to Minor. At the scene, Mother attempted to prevent a bystander from calling for help, fearing her child would be taken away. Both Mother and Minor were transported to medical facilities, where Minor was found to have a brain bleed and required surgery.The San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a petition alleging Minor needed dependency protection. The juvenile court found a prima facie basis for the petition and placed Minor in foster care after her hospital stay. CFS recommended that Minor be placed in the sole custody of her father, S.L. (Father), with no reunification services for Mother. The court continued the jurisdiction and disposition hearing multiple times, during which Mother complied with her case plan, including parenting classes and substance abuse counseling. Despite her progress, CFS maintained that sole custody should be vested with Father, and the matter should be transferred to family court.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the juvenile court's decision to assume dependency jurisdiction under both section 300, subdivision (b) [failure to protect] and subdivision (e) [severe physical abuse]. The court found substantial evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings, noting the severity of Minor's injuries and Mother's actions at the scene. The court also upheld the monitored visitation requirement, emphasizing the need for continued supervision to ensure Minor's safety. The court concluded that the juvenile court did not err in its rulings. View "In re B.L." on Justia Law

David Martorano (Father) and Melissa Mazzei (Mother) divorced in 2020 and share two children, BM and EM. The initial divorce decree provided for joint legal and physical custody and required Father to pay $1,800 per month in child support. In 2022, Mother sought to modify child custody and support. Both parties submitted confidential financial affidavits (CFAs) in late 2022, with Father reporting a net monthly income of $46,150 and Mother reporting $6,354. In October 2023, they updated their CFAs, with Father reporting a significant reduction in income to -$5,455 per month, citing decreased income from his employment and losses from his LLC, WY Knot Charters.The District Court of Natrona County calculated child support based on the figures from the 2022 CFAs, ordering Father to pay $7,830.94 per month and $90,464 in arrears. Father filed a motion for relief from judgment under W.R.C.P. 60, requesting the court to use his 2023 CFA and to recalculate arrears from October 2022 instead of August 2022. The district court granted the motion in part, recalculating arrears from October 2022 but maintaining the child support amount based on the 2022 CFA.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court found no clerical mistake or oversight in the district court's reliance on the 2022 CFA and determined that changing the income figures would result in a substantive modification of the judgment, which is not permissible under W.R.C.P. 60(a). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b), as the accuracy of the 2023 CFA was disputed, and the proper avenue for challenging the district court's discretion was a direct appeal, not a W.R.C.P. 60 motion. View "Martorano v. Mazzei" on Justia Law

In September 2021, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services removed J.T.L. and D.L.L. from their parents' care due to drug use and poor home conditions. This was the fourth removal for J.T.L. and the third for D.L.L. The children were enrolled in the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians in February 2022, and the Department notified the Tribe of the proceedings. The District Court adjudicated the children as youths in need of care in July 2022 and granted the Department temporary legal custody. In August 2022, the court ordered the mother to complete a treatment plan addressing substance use, mental health, parenting, and housing issues. The Department sought termination of her parental rights in October 2023 due to her failure to complete the treatment plan.The Montana Eighth Judicial District Court held a two-day hearing in July 2024 and terminated the mother's parental rights. The mother appealed, arguing that the Department did not make "active efforts" under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and that guardianship, not termination, was in the children's best interests. The District Court found that the Department made active efforts to place the children with ICWA-preferred placements and to support their cultural connections. The court also found that the mother failed to comply with her treatment plan and that her condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the Department made active efforts under ICWA and that the termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests. The court found that the Department consulted with the Little Shell Tribe and sought input from various parties to support the children's cultural engagement. The court also found that the mother failed to complete her treatment plan and that her continued custody would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. View "Matter of D.L.L. & J.T.L." on Justia Law

In this juvenile dependency case, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) removed two children from their mother's home due to concerns of neglect. The juvenile court detained the children and ordered family reunification services for both parents, allowing CFS to provide relative visits as appropriate. The children were placed with their paternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother, R.H., frequently interfered with the parents' visitation schedules, leading to conflicts and an altercation at the children's school.The juvenile court found that visits with the maternal grandmother were detrimental to the children's well-being and ordered that she have no further visits. R.H. filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to reinstate her visits, but the court summarily denied the petition, finding no new evidence or changed circumstances and that visits were not in the children's best interest.R.H. appealed, claiming the juvenile court violated her due process rights by acting on an oral motion without following procedural requirements. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, held that grandparents who are not acting in a parental role have no constitutionally protected right to visit dependent children, and thus, R.H.'s due process challenge failed. The court also found that the juvenile court had the authority to modify the visitation order on its own motion and that any procedural error was harmless.The appellate court concluded that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that visits with the maternal grandmother were detrimental to the children's well-being. The orders denying her further visits and summarily denying her section 388 petition were not abuses of discretion. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's orders. View "In re R.M." on Justia Law

Kiril Lozanov and Capital City Renewables, Inc. (CCR) appealed a Superior Court decision granting summary judgment in favor of Lily B. Piel. Lozanov and CCR alleged that Piel, a former employee, accessed and disclosed Lozanov’s personal emails without authorization, which included confidential information about a wind project unrelated to CCR. Lozanov claimed that Piel’s actions led to increased child support obligations and health issues due to stress from related litigation.The Superior Court dismissed CCR’s claim for intrusion upon seclusion, as the company did not have a right to privacy in Lozanov’s emails. Lozanov’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was also dismissed, as the court found Piel’s conduct was not outrageous enough to warrant such a claim. The court allowed Lozanov’s intrusion upon seclusion claim to proceed but ultimately granted summary judgment for Piel on all counts, finding no evidence that Piel’s actions caused the alleged damages.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The court found no evidence that Piel breached any duty owed to CCR or that her actions caused the damages claimed by Lozanov and CCR. The court also concluded that CCR's and Lozanov’s damages were too remote and speculative to support their claims. Additionally, the court noted that public policy considerations barred recovery, as Lozanov’s attempt to hide assets in a child support proceeding was contrary to the best interests of the child and public policy. View "Capital City Renewables, Inc. v. Piel" on Justia Law

Sarah A. Backhaus and David R. Backhaus were married in 2010 and separated in February 2021. Sarah filed for divorce in April 2022. During the marriage, David received an inheritance, which he deposited into a jointly held savings account (account x4020). At the time of their separation, the account had a balance of $323,571.70. David claimed that the funds in the account were nonmarital, originating from his inheritance, while Sarah contended that the funds were marital property.The district court for Douglas County held a two-day trial in March 2023. David testified about his inheritance and its source, explaining that the funds were deposited into account x4020. He also described various expenditures made from the inheritance, including cars, his education, and the startup costs for Sarah's business. The district court found David's testimony credible and determined that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital property, awarding the balance to David.Sarah appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that David's testimony was insufficient to establish the nonmarital nature of the funds in account x4020, as it lacked specific details about the inheritance amount, its expenditure, and the account into which it was deposited. The Court of Appeals directed that the funds be included in the marital estate and divided equitably.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that David's testimony, along with circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital. The court emphasized that credible testimony alone can establish a nonmarital interest in property. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to affirm the district court's order. View "Backhaus v. Backhaus" on Justia Law

Suzanne Jane Nagle and Gene Murray Nagle were married and divorced twice. They first married in August 1982 and divorced in December 2018. They remarried in August 2022 and separated in February 2023. During their second marriage, Gene, who was disabled, paid most of the couple’s expenses. Suzanne, who was not working at the time of the second divorce, initiated the divorce action in June 2023.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, treated the parties’ second marriage as a long-term marriage and found that a near equal distribution of the marital estate was fair and equitable. The court awarded Suzanne property that she had previously waived her rights to in their first divorce. Gene Nagle filed a motion in limine to exclude certain testimony, which was denied. The court relied on the totality of the parties’ relationship for property distribution purposes and denied Suzanne’s request for spousal support. Gene Nagle timely appealed the court’s property distribution.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the district court’s equitable distribution of the marital estate under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred by treating the second marriage as long-term and by equally dividing the marital property without sufficient evidence to support such a division. The court emphasized that the duration of the marriage refers to the marriage being dissolved and should be considered separately from any prior marriages. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s property division and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, allowing the district court to reconsider the issue of spousal support in conjunction with the property division. View "Nagle v. Nagle" on Justia Law

County officials in Trinity County, California, obtained warrants to take Patricia and Stanley Miroth's children into protective custody, leading to the termination of their parental rights by a state court. The Miroths alleged that the officials failed to provide required social services and committed fraud in the state child custody proceedings, which led to the termination of their parental rights. After unsuccessful appeals in state court, the Miroths filed a federal lawsuit seeking money damages for these alleged wrongs.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the federal claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. The district court found that the Miroths were essentially seeking relief from the state court judgments and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply because the Miroths' claims did not seek relief from or reversal of the state court's order. Instead, they sought money damages for alleged legal wrongs by adverse parties that preceded the state court's order. The court emphasized that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is limited to cases where the federal plaintiff asserts injury caused by a state court judgment and seeks relief from that judgment. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MIROTH V. COUNTY OF TRINITY" on Justia Law

The case involves a divorce dispute between a husband and wife who married in 1993 and had two children. They lived in various locations, including Paris, France, due to the wife's job. In 2014, they moved to separate residences, with the wife claiming she intended to permanently separate and divorce her husband from that date. Despite participating in family activities together, the wife maintained that her intent to separate was continuous. The wife filed for divorce in 2019, citing a separation date of July 14, 2014, while the husband claimed the separation date was December 24, 2018, alleging adultery and desertion.The trial court ruled in favor of the wife, granting her a divorce based on the separation date of July 14, 2014. The husband appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, arguing that the intent to permanently separate must be continuous throughout the statutory period. The Court of Appeals held that the intent only needed to exist at the beginning of the separation period, affirming the trial court's decision.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeals' reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the intent to permanently separate must predominate throughout the statutory period, not just at the beginning. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, presuming that the trial court applied the correct standard and finding sufficient evidence to support the wife's continuous intent to separate. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree on different grounds. View "Lisann v. Lisann" on Justia Law

Patrick Bolduc and Savannah Getchius were married in 2011 and have three minor children. Bolduc filed for divorce in 2021. After two unsuccessful mediations, a final divorce hearing was held in June 2023. The District Court awarded Bolduc sole parental rights and responsibilities and divided the marital property. The court found that Bolduc's property, purchased before the marriage, appreciated in value during the marriage due to both market forces and marital improvements.The District Court determined that the entire appreciation of the property during the marriage was marital property. The court also ordered Getchius to pay $325 weekly in child support and $10,000 of Bolduc's attorney fees. Bolduc filed motions for further findings and to alter the judgment, which the court mostly denied, except for making limited additional findings.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court's decision on the classification of the real property, agreeing that Bolduc did not meet his burden to prove that the appreciation was solely due to market forces. The court also upheld the child support order, finding no error in the calculation or the decision not to order Getchius to pay $1,800 for uninsured medical expenses. However, the court found that the attorney fee award was based on an affidavit that included fees unrelated to the divorce proceedings. The court vacated the attorney fee award and remanded for recalculation of the fees properly subject to an award in the divorce action. View "Bolduc v. Getchius" on Justia Law