Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff (Mother) appealed from the post-judgment order modifying the parenting plan between her and her former husband, Defendant (Father) with respect to their two minor children. Mother contends the family court abused its discretion in ordering the children to participate with Father in a therapy program operated by Family Bridges, which mandated no contact with Mother for a minimum of 90 days.   The Second Appellate District agreed and reversed the order. The court explained that nothing in the record supports the court’s finding that this significant disruption to the children’s established living arrangement with Mother was in their best interest. The order requires the children, for a minimum period of three months, to be moved out of their home and either moved across the country to Los Angeles if the Family Bridges program can be completed during a school break or moved into a new home in New York with Father until the program can be completed there during the school year. The children would not be allowed any contact with Mother during this disruptive period. Without evidence that it is in the best interest of the children to remove them from Mother’s custody for a period of at least 90 days in order to participate in the Family Bridges program, the court abused its discretion in issuing its order of December 22, 2021. View "Johnston-Rossi v. Rossi" on Justia Law

Jane Doe, a three-year-old child, was in the custody of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (the “Department”); she was six days shy of her first birthday when the State removed her from the custody of her mother and placed her with a foster family. Her mother’s attempts to stick to a permanency plan were inconsistent, and while for the majority of the life of this case, the magistrate court held fast to a permanency goal of reunification, it modified that goal in the summer of 2022 so that termination of parental rights and adoption became the primary goals for Jane and reunification became the concurrent goal. Mother appealed the district court’s change of the permanency goals. She also sought a permissive appeal from the magistrate court to appeal to the district court. The magistrate court granted the motion. The district court dismissed the case and remanded it back to the magistrate court sua sponte after determining it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Mother then appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found no error in the district court’s judgment and affirmed. View "IDHW v. Jane Doe (2022-36)" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court adopting the final order of the family law magistrate ordering Mother's divorce from Father, awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' child to Father, and distributing the parties' property, holding that the record lacked competent evidence to support the district court's findings.Mother, acting pro se, timely filed an objection to the final order of the magistrate, but the court denied the motion and adopted the magistrate's judgment. Mother then filed for relief from judgment, to set aside the default judgment, for a new trial, and for amended or additional factual findings. The motions were denied. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case, holding (1) when asserting that a magistrate's judgment lacks sufficient fact-finding, the objecting party should make her claim in a Mont. R. Civ. P. 118(a) objection, not a Mont. R. Civ. P. 52 motion after the district court has reviewed the Rule 118(a) objection; and (2) remand was necessary in this case because the existing record did not support the judgment. View "Daniel v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Petitioner, who was ordered to show cause why she should not be further sanctioned and barred from filing any pro se pleadings in the Supreme Court, had abused the Court's limited judicial resources and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Petitioner, unless such filings were signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Court further denied any pending motions or requests for relief, holding that based on Petitioner's history of filing pro se petitions and requests for relief that were meritless or otherwise inappropriate for appellate review, Petitioner failed to show cause why she should not be sanctioned. View "A.C. v. Dep't of Children & Families" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), petitioned under the New Hampshire Supreme Court's original jurisdiction seeking review of a superior court order denying DCYF’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought against it. In 2019, Respondent filed a complaint as parent and next friend of his children, M.M. and J.M., asserting various claims against both DCYF and the Court Appointed Special Advocates of New Hampshire (CASA). DCYF and CASA moved to dismiss the complaint, with DCYF arguing, inter alia, that the claims were time-barred by RSA 541-B:14, IV. Respondent objected, asserting that RSA 508:8 (2010) tolled the period of limitations in RSA 541-B:14, IV. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court dismissed the claims against CASA as precluded by quasi-judicial immunity, but denied the motion to dismiss the claims against DCYF. In its order, the trial court reasoned that RSA 508:8 operated as a tolling provision and that failing to read the tolling provision into the statute of limitations in RSA 541-B:14, IV would lead to “an absurd, unfair, and unjust result.” In its petition to the Supreme Court, DCYF asked the Court to determine that RSA 508:8 did not apply to claims brought under RSA chapter 541-B. The Supreme Court concurred with Respondent, holding that RSA 508:8 had to be read into RSA 541-B:14, IV in order to comport with the equal protection guarantees afforded to the citizenry under Part I, Articles 2 and 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Petition of New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families" on Justia Law

John Doe sought custody of his daughter, Jane Doe, who was removed from the care of her mother in Idaho when a child protection action was initiated by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“IDHW” or “the Department”). Jane Doe and her maternal half-brother were removed from the custody of their mother in December 2020 due to allegations of abusive conduct. Jane Doe had previously been removed from her mother’s custody in 2018 due to substance abuse issues. John Doe lived in Texas with his wife, who was Jane Doe’s stepmother, and their child, Jane Doe’s paternal half-sibling. At the time of the removal, John Doe was considered a “non-offending parent.” However, the initial “Adjudicatory/Disposition Report of Investigation” filed with the magistrate court noted that John Doe was listed on the Texas Public Sex Offender Website. The magistrate court exercised jurisdiction over Jane Doe in early 2021 and placed her in the Department’s legal custody. As part of the case plan for John Doe, the magistrate court ordered John Doe “to comply with and complete the approval with the [Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC”)] process with the state of Texas[,]” to assess the suitability of John Doe as a placement option for Jane Doe. The ICPC process ordered by the court included a home study and a placement determination. Texas denied IDHW’s multiple requests to conduct a home study on John Doe due to John Doe’s history, which included two prior sex offenses and a past child protection order, along with allegations of physical abuse, sexual abuse, negligent supervision, physical neglect, and medical neglect. Texas also noted that John Doe was a registered sex offender who had previously failed to register. As a result, John Doe never completed a home study. John Doe thereafter requested the Idaho magistrate court revise its case plan to strike the requirement he complete the ICPC process. This request was denied, and the issue before the Idaho Supreme Court in this matter centered on whether the ICPC even applied to John Doe as an out-of-state, non-custodial parent. The Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court’s order modifying the case plan and held that by its plain language, the ICPC did not apply to an out-of-state, non-custodial parent. View "IDHW v. John Doe (2022-32)" on Justia Law

Christine and Thomas O'Holleran married in 2005. They had no children. In 2015, Christine filed for divorce and in her complaint alleged “[t]hat [Thomas] is guilty of physical and mental abuse toward [Christine], and such is sufficient that this marriage should be terminated at the fault of [Thomas].” In his response and counterclaim, Thomas requested a divorce on the grounds of habitual intemperance, extreme cruelty, and irreconcilable differences. Christine subsequently moved to amend her divorce complaint to add a tort claim for emotional and physical abuse and requested damages in excess of $10,000. In his answer to Christine’s amended complaint, Thomas asserted an affirmative defense arguing that the magistrate court lacked jurisdiction to hear Christine’s tort claim. The magistrate court granted Christine’s motion to amend her complaint. The magistrate court held a bench trial on the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, granting the divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences, divided the parties’ real and personal property, and awarded Christine spousal maintenance. The decision did not address Christine’s tort claim. Thomas and Christine both filed motions to reconsider, but neither mentioned the magistrate court’s lack of findings and conclusions regarding Christine’s tort claim. Similarly, the magistrate court did not address Christine’s tort claim in its order denying reconsideration. The issue on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court was whether the magistrate court had authority to decide a tort claim by one spouse against another as an ancillary matter to a divorce proceeding. The Supreme Court determined Idaho Code sections 1-2208 and 1-2210 and I.C.A.R. 5 limited the case types that could be assigned to magistrate courts to those specified in the Seventh Judicial District’s order on local rules. That order did not give the magistrate court authority to decide civil cases seeking damages in excess of $10,000. Nor was the tort claim an ancillary matter to the divorce proceeding. Accordingly, the district court erred when it determined the magistrate court had authority to decide Christine’s tort claim. View "O'Holleran v. O'Holleran" on Justia Law

Respondent-Mother appealed a circuit court order finding that her children were abused and neglected. Petitioner New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed six abuse and neglect petitions alleging Mother's biological children, J.S. and J.P.S. were born prematurely due to exposure to drugs taken during Mother's pregnancy. J.P.S. was born on October 7, 2021, at Mother and Father’s home. Approximately three days after his birth, J.P.S. began showing signs of distress. Father brought J.P.S. to Catholic Medical Center (CMC) under the so-called “safe haven law,” and stated that the child’s mother was, or was believed to be, an intravenous drug user. Because J.P.S’s needs were so extensive, he was transported to Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH). After three days at BCH, J.P.S. returned to CMC, where he was still being treated at the time of the adjudicatory hearing. He was diagnosed with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). The circuit court entered findings of “true” with respect to four petitions alleging neglect of J.S. and J.P.S. by Mother and Father. The two remaining petitions alleged abuse of J.P.S. by Father and Mother, respectively, through injuries sustained by J.P.S. after birth, caused by Mother’s prenatal narcotics use. The court entered findings of “not true” with respect to Father and “true” with respect to Mother. Mother appealed, challenging the finding of abuse of J.P.S. and the findings of neglect of both J.P.S. and J.S., and raising other alleged errors. The only question briefed by Mother, however, relates to the finding of abuse of J.P.S. Accordingly, we deem all other issues raised in Mother’s notice of appeal waived. The New Hampshire Supreme Court found no reversible error in the circuit court's judgment and affirmed. View "In re J.P.S.; In re J.S." on Justia Law

Mother Miranda T. appealed the superior court’s entry of a disposition order in child in need of aid (CINA) proceedings. She contended the court erred by moving forward with an adjudication hearing without having considered her request for a review hearing on a previously stipulated temporary custody and placement arrangement. She contended the court also erred by later refusing to enforce two subsequent agreements she had reached with the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) about placements for her daughter. Furthermore, Mother contended the evidence did not support the disposition order’s predicate findings that (1) OCS had made sufficiently active efforts to reunify the family and (2) removal of the daughter from the family home was necessary to avoid harm to her. After review, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected the mother’s claims of error and affirmed the superior court’s disposition order. View "M.T. (Mother) v. State of Alaska DHSS, OCS" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court continuing an ex parte sexual assault protection order, holding that the sexual assault protection order was properly continued.Amanda F. was granted an ex parte sexual assault protection order against Daniel K. At the close of the evidence, the district court found that a statutory sexual assault offense had occurred, concluded that the risk of future harm was not a consideration under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311.11, the sexual assault protection order statute, and that the protection order should remain in effect for a period of one year. The Supreme Court affirmed the continuation of the sexual assault protection order, holding that Daniel did not carry his burden to show cause why the protection order should not remain in effect. View "Amanda F. v. Daniel K." on Justia Law