Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental and custodial rights due to her substance abuse problem, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Mother's rights and in declining to extend her improvement period or grant an additional, post-dispositional improvement period.After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court denied Mother's motion for a post-dispositional improvement period and terminated her parental and custodial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) refusing to extend Mother's post-adjudicatory improvement period; (2) denying Mother's motion for a post-dispositional improvement period; and (3) terminating Mother's parental and custodial rights. View "In re H.D." on Justia Law

Robin J. appealed the denial of her request to renew a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Michael M., the father of their two children. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court misapplied the law in denying Robin’s renewal request, and that Robin established a reasonable apprehension of future abuse. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to grant the renewal request and decide whether the DVRO should be renewed for five or more years, or permanently. View "Michael M. v. Robin J." on Justia Law

removed an Alaska Native child from his mother and placed him with a relative, the child experienced suicidal ideation and checked himself into a psychiatric facility. Following a period of seemingly voluntary care, OCS requested a hearing to place the child at an out-of-state secure residential psychiatric treatment facility. The child’s Tribe intervened and challenged the constitutionality of AS 47.10.087, the manner in which evidence was received, and alleged due process violations. The child joined in some of these objections. The superior court ordered the child placed at a secure residential psychiatric treatment facility per AS 47.10.087. The Tribe, but not the child, appealed the placement decision, contending primarily that the superior court erred in proceeding under AS 47.10.087 and in making its substantive findings, and plainly erred in authorizing placement pursuant to AS 47.10.087 without addressing the Indian Child Welfare Act’s (ICWA) placement preferences. The Alaska Supreme Court found no error in the court’s application of AS 47.10.087 or its substantive findings, and thus affirmed the superior court’s placement determination. The Court expressed concern that the trial court failed to make required inquiries and findings related to ICWA’s placement preferences. However, this did not amount to plain error. The Supreme Court did not reach the Tribe’s other arguments as the Tribe has either waived them or lacked standing to raise them. View "Tuluksak Native Community v. Dept. of Health & Soc. Srvs." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, R.M., holding that Father was not entitled to relief as to his arguments on appeal.The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father based on his incarceration and the child's placement the care of DCYF for more than twelve months. The trial justice ultimately determined that DCYF had met its burden of proof for the termination of parental rights petition by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) its finding as to parental unfitness; (2) finding that DCYF made reasonable efforts to "encourage and strengthen the parental relationship"; and (3) determining that it was in R.M.'s best interests for Father's parental rights to be terminated. View "In re R.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's motion to modify alimony for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to modify alimony.The parties in this case were divorced by consent decree that awarded Appellant alimony that could be modified if Appellee accepted a veteran's disability pension. Appellant later filed her complaint for modification alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances. The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it believed it was being asked to divide Appellee's veteran's disability benefits, an action that was preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was merely being asked to consider modifying alimony based on a reduction in Appellant's nondisability pension he shared with Appellee, and the district court had jurisdiction to consider this request. View "Parish v. Parish" on Justia Law

Jane Doe appealed the youth court’s denial of her motion to transfer for lack of jurisdiction and motion for recusal. In 2019, Jane was arrested in Natchez, Adams County, Mississippi, and charged with possession and sale of a controlled substance. At the time of her arrest, Jane was pregnant and homeless. As a condition of her bond with Adams County, Jane was placed at Born Free, a residential facility in Hinds County that provided substance abuse treatment to pregnant mothers. Jane entered Born Free on May 30, 2019. On July 16, 2019, Jane gave birth to Karen at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Hinds County. Jane later returned to Born Free with Karen. On August 19, 2019, Jane was negatively discharged from Born Free for various program violations. The Adams County Sheriff’s Department was contacted, and Jane was transported back to Adams County. The Adams County Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) was also contacted and took Karen into custody. Karen was placed in an approved foster home where she remained under the supervision and control of CPS. Upon her return to Adams County, Jane rented an apartment in Adams County. On December 10, 2019, the Adams County County Court, sitting as a youth court,2 adjudicated Karen a neglected child. As part of the permanency plan of reunification, CPS developed a service agreement with Jane. Jane failed to comply with the service agreement and further failed to maintain contact with CPS. As a result, on December 10, 2020, the youth court found that it was in Karen’s best interests for the permanency plan to change from reunification to adoption. CPS ultimately filed a petition to terminate parental rights. Jane moved to transfer her case to Hinds County since she was in court-ordered rehabilitation in Hinds County, and that the judge presiding over her case should have recused because he concluded termination of her parental rights was proper. Jane's motions were denied and she appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court found no reversible error in the court's denial of Jane's transfer motion and recusal and affirmed. View "Jane Doe v. Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court dismissing an attorney's pro se petition to establish an involuntary guardianship of J.W., holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion under the unique circumstances of this case.J.W. was the nine-year-old daughter of Mother, Attorney's former client. Attorney had represented Mother in prior custody disputes involving the child over which he sought to be named the guardian. The juvenile court dismissed the petition on the grounds that Attorney violated his duties to Mother as a former client under the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the juvenile court erred in order dismissal as a remedy for any purported ethical violations. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, holding that dismissal was not clearly untenable. View "In re Guardianship of J.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the juvenile court to change the permanency plan for the two minor children of Father and Mother from family reunification to adoption, holding that there was no error.After a hearing, the district court found that the Department of Family Services made reasonable efforts to reunify the family because neither parent made little to no progress and that it was in the best interests of the children to change the permanency plan. Both parents appealed in two separate appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed as to both parents, holding (1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when changing the permanency plan to adoption; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to determine that it was not in the children's best interest to return home to Mother. View "DS v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court in this divorce action, holding that there was error in the division of the parties' marital property and in the spousal support award.After seventeen years of marriage Husband commenced a divorce against Wife. Wife filed a counterclaim seeking separate maintenance and requesting that the divorce be postponed until she began eligible to receive lifetime TRICARE health care coverage. The trial court granted made an equitable division of marital property, granted Wife a decree of separate maintenance, and awarded her permanent alimony. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying the entry of a divorce decree until after twenty years of marriage and by granting a decree of separate maintenance; (2) the circuit court lacked the authority to enter an equitable division of the marital property in the separate maintenance proceeding; and (3) on remand, the circuit court should consider the question of spousal support in light of the property division. View "Lefors v. Lefors" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Father's petition to modify a child custody order after Mother moved to Tennessee with the parties' child, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified custody.The divorce decree between the parties awarded Mother primary physical custody of the parties' child, AFK. Later, Mother notified Father of her plans to move to Tennessee with AFK. Father filed a petition to modify custody, visitation, and support, alleging that the proposed move was a material change in circumstances. The district court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred and concluded that custody and visitation should be modified. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Father's petition to modify custody. View "Kelly v. Kelly" on Justia Law