Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment entered in the district court establishing parental rights and responsibilities concerning Father's child with Mother, holding that the court's judgment included a finding regarding domestic violence that was contrary to the evidence.Father filed a complaint for the determination of parental rights and responsibilities, and Mother filed an answer and counterclaim. After the district court entered its judgment Father appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment below, holding (1) the court did not err in calculating Father's gross income for purposes of child support; and (2) the court clearly erred in finding that Father did not dispute Mother's testimony that he grabbed, pushed, and choked her, and the error was not harmless. View "Francoeur v. Berube" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court dismissing as moot Father's petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.The Department of Children and Families filed a care and protection petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, 24 after the child in this case tested positive at birth for drugs. Thereafter, temporary custody was granted to Father. Father filed a motion to dismiss the petition for temporary custody on the grounds that there was no need for judicial intervention. The judge denied the order. Thereafter, Father brought his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. While the petition was pending, the juvenile court dismissed the care and protection case. On that basis, the single justice dismissed Father's as moot Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that this Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider Father's appeal notwithstanding the fact that it was moot. View "In re Care & Protection of a Minor" on Justia Law

The Department of Children and Family Services detained infant boy S.S. at birth, based on exigency, alleging his parents abused drugs and S.S. was born testing positive for various drugs. The juvenile court detained S.S. from his parents and placed him with his maternal aunt and uncle. The mother and father both denied Indian ancestry. The maternal aunt, however, said that the mother might have Yaqui heritage. The Department, in turn, notified the Pascua Yaqui tribe, which replied S.S. was not eligible for membership: the tribe would not intervene. The Department never asked paternal extended family members about the possibility of Indian ancestry. The court terminated parental rights in favor of a permanent plan of adoption by the maternal aunt and uncle, who were the caretakers and prospective adoptive parents. The mother appealed. At issue is the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, sections 1901 and following title 25 of the United States Code (the Act, or ICWA) and its California counterpart.   The Second Appellate District conditionally reversed the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply and remanded the matter to the juvenile court with directions to order the Department to inquire of the three paternal extended family members previously identified whether S.S. may be an Indian child. The court explained that the Department’s failure prejudices tribes. The Department had contact information for three extended paternal family members but did nothing with it, thus denying tribes the benefit of the statutory promise. It would be a miscarriage of justice to deny tribes the benefit of this legislation. View "In re S.S." on Justia Law

When A.F. was 11 years old, she applied for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her father, Jeffrey F., who held joint legal custody with her mother, Andrea F. Mother was the original guardian ad litem (GAL), and she retained attorney Edward Castro to represent A.F. Father successfully moved to disqualify Mother as the GAL and Castro as A.F.’s counsel. A.F. appealed the order disqualifying Castro. A new GAL was not appointed. Although A.F. brought the petition on her own behalf, the family court in her parents’ dissolution matter, appointed a “minor’s counsel” to represent her best interests there, in anticipation of changes to the custody and visitation arrangement that could result from the outcome in the DV matter. A.F. retained attorney Aaron Smith, to represent her in the DV matter. The court disqualified Smith for numerous reasons, including that there was a potential conflict of interest from having her maternal grandfather serve as a third-party guarantor. The court also interviewed A.F. and determined she was not competent to retain counsel independently, and it found Smith did not meet the requirements detailed by the California Rules of Court to serve as a “minor’s counsel.” The court appointed counsel in the DV matter, and prohibited Smith from replacing the attorney the court appointed as a “minor’s counsel.” A.F. appealed, contending that the issue of selecting her attorney should have been stayed pending the appeal of the court’s order disqualifying Castro. She also contended it was error to appoint counsel in the DV matter and to disqualify the attorney she chose to represent her there. The Court of Appeal: (1) concluded the court had subject matter jurisdiction to act in the DV matter while the first appeal was pending because her original attorney substituted out of the case; (2) reversed the appointment of a “minor’s counsel,” which was improper in a DV matter where a minor seeks a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA); (3) affirmed the order voiding the agreement between A.F. and Smith and removing Smith as her attorney on the basis that A.F. lacked competency to select her attorney independently; (4) reversed the order prohibiting Smith from serving as A.F.’s attorney in the matter because it was an abuse of discretion to completely disqualify him on the basis that the court rejected the fee agreement or that he failed to meet the requirements of Rule 5.242. View "A.F. v. Jeffrey F." on Justia Law

Mother appealed a family division’s order denying her motion to permanently suspend father’s parent-child contact with the parties’ minor son. Mother argued the court erred in denying her motion to admit into evidence out-of-court statements made to her and other adults by son when he was four years old that allegedly demonstrated sexual abuse by father. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded the family court did not abuse its discretion in excluding son’s hearsay statements from the parent-child contact hearing, and therefore affirmed. View "Davis v. Davis" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appeals from a disorderly conduct restraining order directing him to have no contact with Kayla Jones for one year. In 2013, Rath and Jones divorced. Together they had two children. In July 2022, Jones filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order after Rath sent numerous e-mails to Jones, her attorney, and her employer during a short period of time. A temporary restraining order was issued. In August 2022, a hearing was held and the district court granted a disorderly conduct restraining order against Rath. Rath argued the court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing within fourteen days of issuing the temporary restraining order. He argued the court abused its discretion by granting a restraining order even though Jones’s petition did not comply with N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-01(3). He also argued the court abused its discretion by issuing the disorderly conduct restraining order without sufficient findings. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jones v. Rath" on Justia Law

Jessica G. (Mother) appealed a juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her son, Robert F. Relying on subdivision (b) Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, Mother argued that the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to discharge its duty of initial inquiry, because DPSS did not ask various extended family members whether Robert had any Indian ancestry. The Court of Appeal found DPSS took Robert into protective custody pursuant to a warrant, so DPSS did not take Robert into temporary custody under section 306. Accordingly, DPSS had no obligation to ask Robert’s extended family members about his potential Indian status under section 224.2(b). The Court therefore affirmed the order terminating parental rights. View "In re Robert F." on Justia Law

Appellant Madera County Department of Social Services (department) appealed from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a combined hearing for family reunification review and disposition from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3871 petition on November 15, 2021. The department contends the juvenile court erred when it ordered the department to provide additional reunification services to L.V. (mother) for her dependent children Damian L. and Jesse A. (collectively “the children”).   The Fifth Appellate District reversed the juvenile court’s order continuing mother’s reunification services. The court remanded to the juvenile court with directions to vacate its order continuing mother’s family reunification services. The court explained that the juvenile court erred in failing to consider the entire time period since the children’s initial removal when it calculated the 18-month statutory limit on reunification services. By the time the juvenile court ordered mother’s reunification services to continue in November 2021, mother had received approximately 26 months of services, which was well over the 18-month limit. View "In re Damian L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted certification of a question from the district court regarding the authority of a court-appointed guardian and conservator of an incompetent adult ward to petition the district court for the ward's divorce and concluded that neither a guardian nor a conservator has the power under Wyoming law to pursue a divorce on behalf of a ward.Guardian/Conservator, who was appointed as guardian of Madonna Flory's person and conservator of her estate, filed a complaint for Ms. Flory's divorce from Rand Flory. The parties agreed that there was no controlling Wyoming precedent on the issue of whether a guardian or conservator could file for divorce on behalf of a ward, and the district court certified the question to the Supreme Court. In response the Supreme Court answered that Wyoming law does not permit a a guardian or conservator to move for and prosecute a divorce action on behalf of the ward. View "Flory v. Flory" on Justia Law

After determining that Father’s delusions and paranoia put A.G.(age 14) at risk of serious harm, the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction, ordered that A.G. be removed from Father’s custody, and ordered reunification services and a psychological evaluation. At the six-month hearing, the Agency reported that Father had received his case plan several months earlier but had not signed the plan nor engaged in recommended services. Father also resisted psychological evaluation. At the 12-month hearing, the Agency reported that Father had made moderate progress. The court granted an extension, finding that the Agency had provided reasonable services. At the 18-month hearing, the Agency reported that returning A.G. to Father’s custody still presented a substantial risk of detriment to her well-being and recommended a permanency planning hearing. The court found that the Agency had not provided reasonable services between the 12- and 18-month hearings but declined to exercise its discretion to continue the case, noting Father’s uneven progress.The California Supreme Court affirmed. Reasonable reunification services must be offered to qualifying parents for a minimum of six or 12 months, depending on the child’s age, and generally may be extended for up to 18 months. The court was not automatically required to grant a further extension based on its finding that reasonable services were not provided during the 12- to 18-month extension. Once a child has been out of the parent’s custody for 18 months, the law ordinarily requires the court to proceed to set a hearing to determine a permanent plan. View "Michael G. v. Superior Court of Orange County" on Justia Law