Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A father’s three children were taken into emergency custody by the Alaska Office of Children’s Services (OCS) in 2019 while he was incarcerated in another state. After his release, OCS worked with him but ultimately petitioned to terminate his parental rights, primarily due to the length of his incarceration and concerns about his progress toward reunification. In January 2023, a superior court terminated the parental rights of both parents. The following July, one child, Serena, was adopted by her foster family, and the court closed her child in need of aid (CINA) case, releasing her into her adoptive parents’ custody.The father appealed the termination of his parental rights. In December 2023, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reversed the termination order, finding OCS had not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. On remand, the superior court reopened Serena’s CINA case but left her in the adoptive parents’ custody. The father was appointed counsel in the adoption case. However, more than one year after the adoption decree, the CINA case was declared moot at the request of the guardian ad litem, who cited Alaska’s statutory one-year limit on challenging adoption decrees. The father argued that the one-year bar did not apply because the adoptive parents had not “taken custody” of Serena and that his due process and right to effective counsel were violated.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the dismissal of the CINA case as moot. It held that the one-year statutory bar to challenging adoptions applied because Serena’s adoptive parents had taken custody. The court found no due process violation, as the father had notice, counsel, and opportunity to be heard, and rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding no constitutional deficiencies. View "Jonah B. v. State" on Justia Law

A mother and father, who were in a long-term relationship but not married, had four children together, three of whom are at the center of this case. Repeated incidents in which one child was found wandering unsupervised led the Wyoming Department of Family Services to intervene, citing concerns over parental neglect and substance abuse. After several failed safety plans and continued issues, all three children were taken into protective custody in May 2023. The Department subsequently filed a neglect petition, and the children remained in foster care. Over the following months, the parents struggled with compliance on case plans, including substance abuse treatment and visitation. The Department ultimately sought termination of both parents’ rights, and the children were thriving in foster placements by the time of trial.The District Court of Carbon County conducted a bench trial. The court entered default against the father for failure to respond timely and later denied his motion to set aside the default. After trial, the court found clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate both parents’ rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (v), and determined that termination was in the children’s best interests. Both parents appealed, and their appeals were consolidated.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. The court held that any deficiencies in the Department's adherence to its policies did not impermissibly affect the father’s rights, distinguishing this case from MB v. Laramie County Department of Family Services. The court affirmed termination of the father’s rights based on unchallenged sufficiency of the evidence under § 14-2-309(a)(v). As to the mother, the court found that clear and convincing evidence supported her unfitness and rejected her argument that reasonable reunification efforts were required under § 14-2-309(a)(v). The district court’s termination of parental rights for both parents was affirmed. View "In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: CCC" on Justia Law

The parties in this case are the parents of a six-year-old child, who have experienced ongoing conflict since their separation. After initial allegations of domestic violence, the mother was granted temporary sole custody, with the father receiving supervised visitation. Over time, the parties agreed by stipulation to joint legal and physical custody, with the father completing court-ordered intervention programs. Multiple subsequent disputes led to extensive litigation, including motions for contempt, allegations of child abuse, investigations by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW), and the appointment of a parenting time evaluator and a guardian ad litem (GAL). The parent-child relationship was marked by mutual accusations and high conflict, but investigative reports consistently found the child safe and well-cared for in both households.The Magistrate Court of the First Judicial District, Kootenai County, held an eight-day bench trial on a petition to modify custody. The court found a substantial change in circumstances based on the child’s increasing age, impending school enrollment, and escalating parental conflict. It determined that the mother’s allegations of domestic violence and child abuse by the father were unsubstantiated, citing the conclusions of three IDHW investigations, the parenting time evaluator, and the GAL. The court found the mother was the primary instigator of conflict and that the child’s distress was linked to her conduct. The magistrate judge ordered joint legal and physical custody, a week-on, week-off schedule, appointment of a parenting coordinator, supervised exchanges, counseling, and a process for school selection.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the magistrate court’s judgment. The main holdings were that substantial and competent evidence supported the findings that no domestic violence or child abuse occurred; the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating best-interest factors, delegating limited school-selection authority, or relying on the parenting time evaluation. View "Devai v. Burk" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the development of a parenting plan for a minor child, following years of litigation between the parents. As part of the proceedings, both parties agreed to appoint a parenting evaluator, who was to receive all relevant mental health treatment records from the mother’s providers within ten days. Despite this stipulation, the mother's long-term counselor refused to provide updated treatment records to the evaluator, citing personal distrust, and the mother did not take steps to supplement discovery or seek a protective order. The absence of these records prevented the evaluator from obtaining current information about the mother's mental health status, which was a central issue in determining the child’s best interests.The Ninth Judicial District Court of Pondera County found that both the mother and her counselor had intentionally violated discovery rules and the court-approved stipulation by failing to produce the requested records. As a sanction, the District Court precluded the counselor from testifying about any treatment or records created after the evaluator’s report date. The court allowed testimony regarding earlier treatment but limited further testimony to address the scope of the violation, prevent prejudice, and maintain the integrity of the proceedings.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in imposing this sanction. Applying the standards for discovery sanctions under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the Supreme Court found that the violation was intentional and prejudicial, and that the sanction was proportional and carefully tailored. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that the exclusion of the counselor’s testimony about undisclosed treatment was proper and within the lower court’s broad discretion. View "In re Parenting of C.R.J." on Justia Law

Johnathan R. is the father of two children, aged twelve and nine. The Maine Department of Health and Human Services became involved after the younger child reported feeling unsafe due to Johnathan’s aggressive and erratic behavior. A voluntary safety plan was initially established, placing the children with a resource family. Shortly after, Johnathan threatened to violate the safety plan, prompting the Department to file for a child protection order and preliminary protection, which the District Court granted, placing the children in Department custody.The Ellsworth District Court held a contested preliminary hearing and determined that returning the children to their parents posed immediate harm. Later, during a contested jeopardy hearing, the court heard testimony regarding Johnathan’s substance misuse, including positive tests for alcohol and cocaine, inconsistent participation in treatment programs, and refusal to cooperate with Department efforts. The court found Johnathan’s claims of sobriety and engagement in mental health services not credible due to lack of evidence. The court also noted Johnathan’s combative and aggressive behavior towards family and Department staff, and found that his youngest child was deeply distressed and fearful of him, with both children affected emotionally.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the District Court’s findings for clear error and affirmed the jeopardy order. The Court held that the evidence supported the District Court’s conclusion, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the children were in circumstances of jeopardy to their health and welfare due to Johnathan’s continuing substance misuse, untreated mental health issues, aggressive behavior, and lack of insight into the children’s fears. The Court further declined to address the statutory delay in issuing the jeopardy order, as no remedy was available under Maine law. The District Court judgment was affirmed. View "In re Children of Johnathan R." on Justia Law

A father, originally from Iraq, moved with his children to Alaska after living in California. Following their eviction from an apartment, he and his son stayed at a campground. The Alaska Office of Children’s Services (OCS) began investigating after reports of physical abuse. The son, then thirteen, described repeated abuse by his father, including beatings and injuries. A forensic exam confirmed evidence of physical harm. OCS took custody of the son and filed a petition alleging the child was in need of aid due to physical harm, risk of mental injury, and neglect.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Palmer, held hearings where an Arabic interpreter was provided for the father, although he mostly communicated in English. OCS developed a case plan that included domestic violence and mental health assessments, but the father did not engage with these services and eventually disappeared, later being found incarcerated in Florida. Despite efforts by OCS to maintain contact and locate both the father and the mother, who remained in Iraq, the father was largely unresponsive. At adjudication and termination hearings, the court found the child was in need of aid due to abandonment and parental incarceration. The court determined OCS had made reasonable efforts by offering services, attempting communication, and meeting the child’s needs.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the father’s appeal, which challenged the adequacy of OCS’s reunification efforts, specifically regarding mental health services and language accommodations. The court held that OCS’s efforts were reasonable, noting the father’s unwillingness to engage and absence, and found OCS made reasonable accommodations for language barriers. The court emphasized that OCS’s duty includes offering appropriate services and accommodations but does not extend to forcing an uncooperative parent to participate. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s termination of parental rights. View "Hamza B. v. State" on Justia Law

A married couple entered into a premarital agreement before marrying in 2004. In 2022, the wife filed for dissolution of marriage and requested temporary spousal support and other relief. The husband responded by presenting a purported premarital agreement. During a hearing, both parties’ counsel agreed to bifurcate the issue of the validity of this agreement for an early trial. Over several months and multiple trial setting conferences, the wife’s counsel did not object to this bifurcation or raise any related procedural issues.As the case progressed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the matter was reassigned to different judges, and the bifurcation arrangement was discussed without objection from the wife’s counsel. Only eight months after the original stipulation to bifurcate—and after multiple hearings—the wife’s counsel refused to proceed with the bifurcated trial unless a specific procedural right, as recognized in European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1211, was honored. The husband then requested $20,000 in sanctions, arguing that the wife’s delay and conduct increased litigation costs and frustrated the settlement process. The trial court found that the wife’s counsel’s conduct constituted undue delay and gamesmanship, warranting sanctions under Family Code section 271.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that parties in marital dissolution cases must timely invoke their rights under European Beverage to avoid unnecessary delay and increased costs. Because the wife failed to do so despite agreeing to bifurcation, the trial court’s order imposing sanctions was affirmed. The appellate court also found no error in the trial court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on sanctions and in the manner of payment ordered. View "In re Marriage of Martinez" on Justia Law

A husband filed a petition to dissolve his marriage in 2018, and the trial court entered an uncontested judgment of dissolution nine months later but reserved ruling on issues including equitable distribution of marital property. The court ultimately resolved the contested distribution in 2022, valuing the marital assets as of the date of the initial petition. The former wife requested prejudgment interest on her share of the assets from the date of the petition to the actual distribution, but the trial court denied this, finding it inequitable to charge the former husband for delays mainly due to the pandemic.The former wife appealed the denial, among other issues, to the Third District Court of Appeal. The appellate court found several errors, including the trial court’s failure to support its denial of attorney’s fees with factual findings and its lack of evidentiary support for denying prejudgment interest. The Third District held that the trial court’s stated basis for denying prejudgment interest was inconsistent with the underlying purpose of such awards and noted this conflicted with the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Iarussi v. Iarussi, which categorically prohibited prejudgment interest in equitable distribution.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case to resolve the conflict between the district courts. It held that a trial court has discretionary authority to award prejudgment interest as an equitable remedy under section 61.075, Florida Statutes, when distributing marital property. The Court emphasized that such awards are not automatic but depend on the facts of each case and the trial court’s discretion to achieve equity between the parties. The Court approved the Third District’s decision and disapproved the First District’s contrary holding in Iarussi. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Stewart v. Vindel" on Justia Law

The case centers on a dispute over the parenting arrangement for a minor child, C.F.B., who has significant special needs, including Level 3 Autism Spectrum Disorder and other disabilities. The mother, who has been the child’s primary caregiver, sought primary residential responsibility and proposed a graduated parenting plan that initially limited the father, who had moved out of state and had limited recent contact with the child, to supervised parenting time. The father, representing himself, agreed to the mother’s primary responsibility but requested unsupervised parenting time.The District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, presided over a trial in which the court excluded the father’s medical evidence due to discovery violations. The court credited testimony from the mother and her own mother about the child’s extensive care needs and found the father’s testimony untrustworthy and unpersuasive. The court adopted the mother’s proposed graduated parenting plan, which included multiple phases with supervision and professional assessments as prerequisites for progression, and awarded her primary decision-making authority and the right to obtain a passport for the child.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s findings and orders. It held that the factual findings supporting supervised parenting time, decision-making authority, and expense-sharing were not clearly erroneous and affirmed those provisions, as well as the denial of the father’s post-judgment motions. However, the Supreme Court determined that the advancement criteria for Phases 3 and 4 of the parenting plan impermissibly delegated judicial authority to unnamed professionals without objective standards or means for judicial review. The court reversed these provisions and remanded for the establishment of objective criteria or judicial oversight. The Supreme Court also reversed the award of $500 in attorney’s fees to the mother and denied her request for appellate attorney’s fees. View "Rustan v. Ball" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two former spouses over the custody of their children and related attorney’s fees. After their 2021 divorce, the parties shared equal residential responsibility for their two children. In 2023, following an incident at school and a note written by one child, Kayla Reierson withheld the children from Dustin Reierson despite a social worker’s finding of no abuse or neglect. Both parties filed motions with the district court. Prior to a full hearing, they settled most issues through a partial stipulation for an amended judgment, expressly reserving the issues of contempt and attorney’s fees for the court to decide.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, held a two-day evidentiary hearing. It found Kayla Reierson in contempt for intentionally withholding the children and making a false allegation of harm. The court awarded Dustin Reierson attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,731.73—ten percent of his total fees—finding it was impossible to distinguish fees incurred for the false allegation from those incurred for other litigation. Notice of the contempt order was filed August 26, 2025, and an amended judgment was entered November 3, 2025, incorporating the contempt order and fee award. Dustin Reierson filed his notice of appeal on November 25, 2025.The Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded the appeal of the contempt order was untimely because it was not filed within sixty days as required by statute. The court further held the appeal of the attorney’s fee award was timely, as that portion was not subject to the same strict deadline. It determined Dustin Reierson had not waived his right to appeal the attorney’s fee award, and affirmed the district court’s award, finding no abuse of discretion. Kayla Reierson’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal was denied. The contempt order appeal was dismissed; the attorney’s fee award was affirmed. View "Reierson v. Reierson" on Justia Law