Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to his twin children. The circuit court found that Father was an unfit parent based on two statutory grounds under Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(b) and (b)(3)(B)(ii)(a). On appeal, Father argued that the circuit court erred in both findings because the statute requires that the children have lived out of the custody of the “parent” for twelve months. The Supreme Court agreed with Father, holding that the circuit court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights because the record did not demonstrate that Father’s legal status as the biological parent was established to apply the twelve-month time period described in the statute. View "Earls v. Arkansas Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 2005. In 2012, the circuit court memorialized an agreement by the parties raising Father’s child-support obligation to $6,005 per month. In 2014, Father filed a petition to reduce his child support payments on the grounds that there had been a material change in circumstances. In 2014, the circuit court entered an order reducing Father’s monthly child support obligation to $2,108 per month. The new support obligation was made retroactive, and the circuit court ordered amortization of the $27,279 overpayment by a further $1,000 per month reduction in Father’s payments. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Father met his burden of proving that there had been a material change of circumstances. View "Troutman v. Troutman" on Justia Law

The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition to terminate Parents’ parental rights to their three children, alleging multiple grounds against each parent. After a termination hearing, the circuit court terminated the parental rights of both Father and Mother. As to Father, the circuit court concluded that DHS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s rights was warranted under three grounds and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the order terminating Father’s parental rights, holding (1) DHS proved that a ground for termination - the subsequent factors ground - existed by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) the circuit court did not err in finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. View "Martin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Gregory Pelts and Shelly Pelts divorced in 2014. In the divorce decree, the circuit court granted Shelly a marital portion of Gregory’s military retirement and ordered Gregory to pay for a survivor-benefit option for Shelly from whatever retirement payments he ended up receiving. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in treating Gregory’s nonvested active-duty retirement interest as divisible property and in ordering him to maintain a survivor-benefit plan out of his retirement income for Shelly’s sole benefit without providing sufficient justification for why Gregory must participate in the cost of the benefit. Remanded. View "Pelts v. Pelts" on Justia Law

When Mother and Father divorced, Mother was awarded custody of the parties’ twin boys, and Father was awarded visitation. Both parties later sought an award of primary custody, and Mother requested permission to relocate with the children to Florida. After a hearing, the court entered its “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” which included construing an agreed order as creating a joint custody arrangement and denying Mother’s request to relocate. The resulting order was entered on August 27, 2015. Mother filed a notice of appeal. The court of appeals found that the notice of appeal was fatally deficient as to the custody issues for failing to designate the August 27 final custody order. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and remanded, holding that the notice of appeal substantially complied with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e) and therefore was not fatal to appellate jurisdiction. View "Emis v. Emis" on Justia Law

Appellant’s former stepson, G.L., was born to Mother. After Appellant and Mother married, they had a daughter, E.M. Mother later filed a complaint for divorce against Appellant. The decree of divorce granted custody of E.M. to Mother and stated that Appellant would have reasonable visitation with G.L. Mother married Appellee the next year. Appellee subsequently filed a petition for adoption of G.L. and E.M. The circuit court granted the petition, finding that Appellant’s consent to the adoptions was not necessary. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and dismissed in part, holding (1) the circuit court’s finding that Appellant’s consent was not required for Appellee to adopt E.M. was clearly erroneous; and (2) the circuit court’s finding that adoption by Appellee was in G.L.’s best interest was not clearly erroneous. View "Martini v. Price" on Justia Law

Christopher Foster and Leah Foster were divorced pursuant to a divorce decree that awarded Leah primary custody of the parties’ three children, with Christopher receiving visitation. The decree approved the parties’ settlement agreement regarding the disposition of the marital assets. The circuit court also found that an award of rehabilitative alimony was appropriate. The court further awarded Leah attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in its interpretation of Ark. Code ann. 9-12-312(b) or in its finding that Leah was entitled to rehabilitative alimony under the facts of this case; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion it setting the amount and the duration of the alimony award; and (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and litigation-related expenses to Leah. View "Foster v. Foster" on Justia Law

After C.E. was born, the circuit court ordered C.E. to be removed from his mother and placed in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS). The court subsequently entered an adjudication order finding C.E. dependent-neglected. The court ordered a home study of C.E.’s paternal uncle and his wife (together, the Ellises). C.E.’s foster parents (together, the Coles) sought to intervene in the dependency-neglect case, stating that they wanted to adopt C.E. C.E.’s father urged the circuit court to consider and approve the home study and place C.E. with the Ellises. The circuit court ordered that C.E. was to remain in his foster home with the Coles and changed the permanency goal to adoption. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, upon receipt of the satisfactory home study, the circuit court erred by failing to conduct the mandatory review hearing and apply the statutory preference for relative placement to the Ellises. Remanded. View "Ellis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Appellees, three married female couples, filed suit against Appellant, the director of the Arkansas Department of Health, seeking a declaration that the refusal to issue birth certificates with the names of both spouses of the birth certificates of their respective minor children violated their equal protection and due process rights. Appellees also sought an order requiring Appellant to issue corrected birth certificates. The circuit court ordered Appellant to issue three amended birth certificates naming both spouses. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in finding that the case was controlled by Smith v. Wright; and (2) the circuit court erred in finding that Ark. Code Ann. 20-18-401(e) and (f) and Ark. Code Ann. 20-18-406(a)(2) facially violated Appellees’ rights to due process and equal protection. View "Smith v. Pavan" on Justia Law

Katie Stehle and Ernest Zimmerebner divorced in 2001. In 2014, the circuit court found that Stehle was in willful contempt for her failure to pay child support as ordered and granted judgment for an arrearage. Along with Stehle’s biweekly support obligation, the court ordered her to pay an additional sum to be applied toward the arrearage. In 2015, Zimmerebner filed a motion for contempt and body attachment, alleging that Stehle missed payments and remitted sums below the required amount. The circuit court subsequently increased Stehle’s child support obligation. The court subsequently found Stehle in contempt and required her to report to jail every weekend. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred by holding Stehle in contempt without determining whether she had the ability to pay additional sums toward the arrearage; and (2) the circuit court’s order was too indefinite for Stehle to know how she might purge herself of the contempt. Remanded. View "Stehle v. Zimmerebner" on Justia Law