Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a custody dispute over a seven-year-old child, S.M. Initially, S.M. lived with his mother, Erica Ward, for the first eleven months of his life. He then moved in with his father, Samuel Mack, for the next two-and-a-half years. It is alleged that Mack killed Ward in S.M.’s presence. Following Ward’s death and Mack’s arrest, S.M. stayed with his maternal uncle, Gregory Bowlding, for eight days before moving in with Mack’s adult daughter and S.M.’s half-sister, Samaya. Bowlding sought third-party custody of S.M., despite not being S.M.’s parent or de facto parent.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia dismissed Bowlding’s suit for lack of statutory standing, concluding that he did not meet any of the statutory categories under which third parties are permitted to petition for custody of a minor. The court also rejected Bowlding’s argument that he had standing to seek custody through the court’s common law or equitable powers.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. Bowlding argued that he had statutory standing under D.C. Code § 16-831.02(a)(1)(C), which allows a third party to seek custody if they are living with the child and exceptional circumstances exist to prevent harm to the child. He acknowledged that he was not living with S.M. at the time he filed his suit but argued for a broad interpretation of the statute. The court disagreed, holding that the plain text of the statute requires the third party to be living with the child at the time of filing. The court also rejected Bowlding’s argument that he had standing under the court’s common law or equitable jurisdiction, noting that the legislative history of the statute did not support such an interpretation. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Bowlding’s suit for lack of standing. View "Bowlding v. Mack" on Justia Law

A couple, who share one child, E.A., sought to modify their child support and custody arrangements following their divorce. The father, Mr. Builta, requested a reduction in his child support payments due to an increase in the mother, Ms. Guzmán’s, income and his own additional dependents. He also sought changes to the custody schedule and restrictions on Ms. Guzmán’s school visits during his custodial time. Ms. Guzmán sought sole legal and physical custody, citing Mr. Builta’s planned move to Maryland and his alleged misuse of tie-breaking authority in decision-making for E.A.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially ordered Mr. Builta to pay $1,736 per month in child support and granted joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority to Mr. Builta. The court later modified the child support to $1,644 per month, using the Holland method to account for the parents' increased combined income. The court found no substantial and material change in circumstances to justify altering the custody arrangement but made minor adjustments to the custody schedule and communication requirements.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It affirmed the use of the Holland method for calculating child support but found errors in the trial court’s income calculations and procedural steps. The appellate court remanded the case for recalculating child support with correct income data. It also reversed the trial court’s changes to the custody exchange day and the restriction on Ms. Guzmán’s school visits, finding no substantial and material change in circumstances to justify these modifications. The court upheld the trial court’s decision not to alter the joint custody arrangement, emphasizing the child’s best interests and the parents' ability to cooperate despite their conflicts. View "Builta v. Guzman" on Justia Law