Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A divorce and child-custody case between two parents was initially filed in 2019 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, where a guardian ad litem was appointed for their minor children. The parents made partial payments toward the guardian ad litem’s fees, but a motion for payment of the remaining fees was pending when the mother requested, and the court granted, a dismissal of the case without prejudice. Shortly after, the parents refiled for divorce, and the guardian ad litem sought payment for services rendered in both the dismissed and refiled cases. The trial court ordered both parents to pay their respective shares of the outstanding fees.The father appealed the trial court’s order to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, arguing that the court erred by ordering payment of fees incurred in the dismissed case. The appellate court initially dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating that such an order was interlocutory and not final or appealable. Upon reconsideration, however, the appellate court reversed its position, finding that under the specific circumstances, the order was final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) because it affected a substantial right in a special proceeding. The appellate court then vacated the trial court’s fee order.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that an interlocutory order requiring payment of guardian ad litem fees in an ongoing divorce and child-custody proceeding is not a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B). The court reasoned that such orders do not, as a category, affect a substantial right requiring immediate appeal, and parties must wait for a final judgment before appealing. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Ohio vacated the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the fee order. View "E.A.K.M. v. M.A.M." on Justia Law

A married couple, who wed in 2020 and share a young child, purchased an engineering business together using loans secured by the wife’s premarital home. After their separation in 2023, the wife petitioned for divorce. The parties entered into interim agreements regarding custody, child support, and business management, but the husband repeatedly violated these orders by failing to make required payments, misusing business funds, and withholding financial disclosures. The wife raised concerns about the husband’s substance abuse and erratic behavior, providing evidence of his alcohol and marijuana use, as well as incidents of intoxication during child exchanges and at work. The husband denied these allegations but admitted to some problematic behavior in written communications.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, held multiple hearings, finding the husband in contempt several times for violating court orders. At trial, the court heard testimony and reviewed evidence regarding the husband’s parenting, financial conduct, and the parties’ competing proposals for the business. The court found the wife more credible, sanctioned the husband for discovery violations, and ultimately awarded her primary custody of the child, with the husband’s parenting time to be phased in only after he completed chemical dependency and mental health evaluations. The court also awarded the wife sole ownership of the business and her premarital home, requiring her to assume all related debts.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decisions. It held that the finding regarding the husband’s failure to make full financial disclosures was supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court also found no abuse of discretion in conditioning the husband’s parenting time on completion of evaluations or in awarding the business to the wife, as these decisions were equitable and consistent with Montana law. View "In re Marriage of Boeshans" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were married in 2016 and have one child together. After their separation in 2019, the mother experienced mental health issues, and in December 2020, the parents signed a marital settlement agreement granting the father sole legal and physical custody of their daughter, with the mother receiving visitation rights. This arrangement was formalized in a dissolution judgment in July 2021. In October 2021, the mother requested a change in custody, citing improved circumstances and alleging that the father had relocated, was not complying with court orders, and was restricting her contact with their child.The Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County held a three-day evidentiary hearing in November 2022. The trial court made detailed factual findings, including that the father was uncooperative, had violated court orders, denied visitation and communication, and was not credible. The court found the mother to be more capable of facilitating contact and noted her sobriety and efforts to co-parent. Based on these findings, the court ordered that the mother have sole physical custody of the child, while both parents would share joint legal custody. The father did not object to the tentative decision before judgment was entered in January 2024.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court held that the father forfeited his due process arguments by failing to raise them in the trial court and found that he was not denied due process, as he had notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court also rejected the father's claim regarding the separation of siblings, noting that two were stepsiblings and one was a half-sibling, and found no legal error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s custody order and awarded costs to the mother. View "In re Marriage of R.K. & G.K." on Justia Law

K.S. gave birth to her daughter, Jane, in August 2018 and struggled with ongoing methamphetamine abuse before, during, and after her pregnancy. Jane’s early life was marked by instability, with K.S. frequently leaving her in the care of relatives and exposing her to unsafe environments. After a series of rehabilitation attempts and relapses, Jane was adjudicated a neglected child by the Rankin County Youth Court in November 2019, and custody was transferred among family members. By early 2022, Jane was in the durable legal custody of M.F.D. and M.D., K.S.’s cousin and her husband.M.D. and M.F.D. filed a petition in the Rankin County Chancery Court in August 2022 to terminate K.S.’s parental rights and adopt Jane. Before trial, they requested the youth court to transfer jurisdiction to the chancery court, which the youth court granted, finding all matters resolved and the transfer in Jane’s best interest. The chancery court then held a trial, denied K.S.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and terminated her parental rights based on abandonment, desertion, unfitness, and failure to provide for Jane’s needs. The court also found reunification was not in Jane’s best interest and subsequently granted the adoption. K.S. appealed the termination and later filed a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the adoption, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which was denied.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that the chancery court had subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate K.S.’s parental rights because the youth court had formally relinquished jurisdiction, and no statute prohibited such transfer. The Court also found no manifest error in the termination decision, as substantial evidence supported the chancellor’s findings. Finally, the Court declined to adopt a rule requiring automatic stays of adoption proceedings pending appeals of termination orders. The judgments of the chancery court were affirmed. View "K.S. v. M.D. and M.F.D." on Justia Law

A divorced couple with two children has been involved in ongoing litigation over custody and visitation since their separation in 2019. The mother was granted primary physical custody, while both parents shared joint legal custody. The children have consistently resisted visitation with their father, often refusing to interact with him during scheduled exchanges. The father alleged that the mother interfered with his visitation rights and alienated the children, while the mother claimed the children’s reluctance stemmed from the father’s past abuse and alcohol misuse. Over several years, the court ordered various counseling and reunification efforts, but the children continued to avoid contact with their father.After multiple motions and hearings, the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Meade County, South Dakota, ordered a new visitation arrangement in February 2024, requiring the mother to encourage the younger child to attend twice-weekly dinners with the father. Despite the mother’s documented efforts to encourage attendance, the child continued to refuse to participate in the visits. The father moved for sanctions, arguing that the mother’s encouragement was superficial and that she undermined his relationship with the child.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case after the mother appealed the circuit court’s imposition of sanctions, which included civil penalties and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court had statutory authority under SDCL 25-4A-5 to impose sanctions for willful noncompliance with visitation orders, independent of contempt proceedings. The Court found no clear error in the circuit court’s determination that the mother willfully failed to encourage visitation as required, and it affirmed the imposition of $2,000 in civil penalties and $2,000 in attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order in all respects. View "Lefors v. Lefors" on Justia Law

A child was born in 2012 to Kendra and Christopher, but due to concerns about Kendra’s fitness as a parent, the child was placed with her paternal grandmother, Denise, and Denise’s long-term partner, David Lemaster, under a Cabinet safety plan. Denise was later granted permanent custody of the child, and the child lived with Denise and Lemaster for her entire life. Kendra, the child’s mother, was initially denied visitation but later received supervised and then unsupervised visitation. Denise and Lemaster jointly raised and financially supported the child, functioning as a family unit. In 2022, Denise died, and Lemaster sought to intervene in the ongoing custody case, claiming de facto custodian status and seeking custody or visitation.The Greenup Family Court granted emergency custody to Kendra and, without holding an evidentiary hearing, later awarded her full custody, denying Lemaster’s motion to intervene as untimely and finding he could not qualify as a de facto custodian. Lemaster’s motion to alter or amend was denied. On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Lemaster’s intervention was untimely and that he could not be a de facto custodian since he co-parented with Denise, the legal custodian.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed and remanded. It held that Lemaster had standing to intervene as a “person acting as a parent” under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and had sufficiently alleged a basis for de facto custodian status, even though he was not married to Denise. The Court found that Lemaster’s motion to intervene, filed two days after Denise’s death, was timely, as his interest was previously protected by Denise. The Court ordered the family court to allow Lemaster to intervene and to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine his status as a de facto custodian. View "LEMASTER V. STILTNER" on Justia Law

After a 17-year marriage, a couple divorced in 2018. The court awarded the wife, who was a homemaker, five years of maintenance and set child support based on her imputed income and the husband’s substantial earnings as an orthodontist. The wife later suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident, which left her unable to work for two years. She remarried, ending her maintenance payments, and subsequently experienced ongoing health issues, including complications from Covid-19. By 2024, her maintenance had expired, her income was significantly reduced, and she alleged that the children’s needs had changed, including concerns about health insurance for a special needs child. She also claimed the husband’s income had increased.The Montana Fifth Judicial District Court denied her motion to modify child support without permitting discovery or holding an evidentiary hearing. The court reasoned that the expiration of maintenance was anticipated in the original decree and did not constitute a changed circumstance. It also found the wife’s claims about the husband’s increased income and the children’s needs to be speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence, and thus concluded that no changed circumstances warranted review or modification of the child support order.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the wife’s substantial decrease in income, her ongoing health impairments, the children’s aging and insurance needs, and the husband’s alleged increased income constituted sufficient changed circumstances to warrant further inquiry. The Court found that the District Court abused its discretion by denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing, as these were necessary to determine whether the existing child support order had become unconscionable. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, including discovery and a hearing. View "In re Marriage of Jackson" on Justia Law

Twin infants were removed from their parents’ care after authorities found them living in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, including exposure to drugs, lack of medical care, and the presence of a registered sex offender in the home. The parents had a history of involvement with child protective services, including three prior removals of their older children due to domestic violence, substance abuse, and neglect, culminating in the involuntary termination of their parental rights to those children. After the twins’ birth in Washington, the family returned to Montana, where similar concerns quickly arose, leading to the Department of Public Health and Human Services seeking emergency protective services and termination of parental rights.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, held hearings on the Department’s petition. The parents did not contest probable cause for removal at the emergency hearing. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, who recommended that no reunification efforts were required due to the parents’ history. At the adjudication and termination hearing, the court found clear and convincing evidence of aggravated circumstances, including chronic, severe neglect and prior involuntary terminations, and concluded that the parents’ unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The court terminated both parents’ rights to the twins and granted permanent legal custody to the Department, finding that a treatment plan and further reunification efforts were not statutorily required.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in terminating the father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court held that substantial evidence supported the District Court’s findings of chronic, severe neglect and the relevance of prior terminations. The Court also held that the Department was not required to provide reunification services after seeking a determination that such efforts were unnecessary, and that the father’s due process rights were not violated. The decision of the District Court was affirmed. View "In re S.W. & D.W." on Justia Law

After the dissolution of their marriage in 2019, two parents agreed to a parenting plan for their child, D.C.S., which was adopted by the court and provided that the child would primarily reside with the mother, Rebeccah, while the father, Joshua, would have parenting time during visits to Montana. This arrangement remained unchanged for nearly four years. In 2022, the child’s maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, the Scotts, began caring for D.C.S. due to concerns about Rebeccah’s behavior, including substance abuse and neglect. The Scotts alleged that the child’s living conditions with Rebeccah were unsafe and that Joshua had not been involved in the child’s life for several years. After Rebeccah removed D.C.S. from school and moved him to North Dakota, the Scotts sought third-party parenting rights and obtained an ex parte emergency order granting them temporary custody.The Scotts filed their petition and emergency motion in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. Rebeccah objected, challenging the Scotts’ standing and the allegations against her, and moved to amend or set aside the emergency order. The District Court denied her motion, finding the Scotts’ affidavits sufficient for temporary relief. After a full evidentiary hearing, where both sides presented evidence, the District Court issued findings and amended the parenting plan, granting primary custody to the Scotts and parenting time to Rebeccah.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court’s final custody order should be vacated due to alleged procedural errors in granting the initial emergency order, and whether plain error review was warranted for the denial of Rebeccah’s post-judgment motions. The Supreme Court held that any procedural defects in the temporary order were cured by the subsequent evidentiary hearing and final order, rendering those issues moot. The Court also declined to exercise plain error review, finding no manifest miscarriage of justice. The District Court’s order was affirmed. View "In re Parenting of D.C.S." on Justia Law

A child was born in Connecticut in July 2024 to parents who both resided in Connecticut at the time of the birth. The mother, who had previously lived in Massachusetts and had a long history with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF), moved to Connecticut several months before the birth, enrolling in a Connecticut healthcare program and living in a domestic violence shelter there. The father had also been living in Connecticut. The Massachusetts DCF, concerned about the child’s welfare due to the mother’s history and a recent domestic violence incident involving the father, arranged to take emergency custody of the child at the Connecticut hospital immediately after birth.Two days after the child’s birth, the Massachusetts DCF filed a care and protection petition in the Hampden County Division of the Juvenile Court Department, seeking temporary custody. The Juvenile Court granted temporary custody to the department without determining the basis for jurisdiction. Later, after hearings, a Juvenile Court judge found that Massachusetts had default jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA), and subsequently, after joint conferences with a Connecticut judge, concluded that Massachusetts was the appropriate forum because Connecticut had declined jurisdiction. The parents and the child sought interlocutory appeal, and the Appeals Court allowed it. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts then transferred the case on its own initiative.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the Juvenile Court lacked jurisdiction under the MCCJA because Connecticut was the child’s “home state,” as the child lived there from birth with the parents. The Court found that Massachusetts did not have default, emergency, or appropriate forum jurisdiction, as Connecticut had not declined jurisdiction before the Massachusetts court issued custody orders. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. View "Care and Protection of Faraj" on Justia Law