Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Mother S.G. appealed after the juvenile court terminated her parental rights to her son. She raised two challenges. First, she faults the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) for failing to exercise due diligence in locating her son’s father (Father). Mother argued this failure to locate Father, which included ignoring information she provided on how to locate him, invalidated the notice the court deemed proper for Father. Second, she contends DCFS did not comply with its initial duty of inquiry under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2,1 subdivision (b) when it failed to ask maternal and paternal extended family members about Indian ancestry within the meaning of Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).   The Second Appellate District conditionally reversed the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and directed the juvenile court to order DCFS to complete its duty of due diligence to discover the whereabouts of Father and complete its initial inquiry of available maternal and paternal relatives into familial Indian ancestry. The court explained that this dependency proceeding lasted over two years. In that time, DCFS made two attempts to locate Father, and it did so using database search resources only. It made no attempt to inquire about Indian ancestry after obtaining Mother’s denial of such ancestry. The court found that DCFS did not exercise reasonable due diligence in its attempts to locate Father. The court also found that  DCFS erred in determining that ICWA did not apply without inquiring about available family members for whom it had contact information. View "In re Jayden G." on Justia Law

Respondent-appellant Wife appealed the property division incorporated into a divorce decree. The parties initially agreed to a settlement after mediation, but Wife later changed her mind. Petitioner-appellee Husband moved to enforce the settlement agreement, and the trial court held a hearing on the request. The trial court's divorce decree divided property between the parties based on information provided at the settlement conference and the hearing. Wife contended that the court's property division was unfair, and she appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court questioned the timeliness of Wife's appeal but allowed the appeal to proceed, reserving consideration of the timeliness issue until the decisional stage. After review, the Court determined Wife's appeal of the trial court's judgment was timely, and that the property division reached by the trial court was fair, just, and reasonable. Therefore judgment was affirmed. View "Owens v. Owens" on Justia Law

In this case, the superior court granted visitation to grandparents after finding that the children enjoyed a positive relationship “typical of a grandparent-child relationship” and that the parents’ motive for cutting off contact with the grandparents was spiteful. To this, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the court’s ruling, finding the parents’ motive for ending visitation did not show that the lack of visitation was detrimental to the children. "And the mere fact that children enjoy a positive or typical relationship with their grandparents does not amount to clear and convincing evidence that ending visitation is detrimental to the children. Absent such evidence, it is error to order visitation that a fit parent does not wish to allow." View "Christy v. Conrad" on Justia Law

Blythe and Danny were the parents of three-year-old Gene. Blythe had two other children, Gene’s half siblings, with a man named Timothy. Timothy has custody of those other children; they lived with him and his parents, Robert and Vivian. In January 2021, the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) filed a non-emergency petition to adjudicate Gene a child in need of aid due to concerns about Blythe’s and Danny’s mental health and substance abuse. Later that month OCS removed Gene from his parents and placed him with Robert and Vivian. Robert and Vivian considered themselves Gene’s grandparents, though they were not related to him by blood or marriage. When OCS decides to transfer a child in its custody from one out-of-home placement to another, a party may seek judicial review of that decision. According to statute, the superior court shall deny the proposed transfer if the party “prove[s] by clear and convincing evidence that the transfer would be contrary to the best interests of the child.” OCS argued that in some circumstances the party challenging a proposed transfer must also show it was an abuse of discretion, such as when OCS seeks to transfer the child to a statutorily preferred placement or due to licensing concerns with the existing placement. Because there was no basis in statutory text or legislative history to supplant the standard of review chosen by the legislature with a standard more deferential to OCS, the Alaska Supreme Court declined to do so. And because the Court mistakenly applied abuse of discretion review in State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services v. Zander B., 474 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2020), it overruled that decision to the extent it was inconsistent with the opinion here. View "Blythe P. v. Alaska, DHSS, OCS" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court finding that it was not in the best interest of the minor child at issue in this case to grant a petition to adopt the child (Child), whose parents died as the result of a murder-suicide, holding that there was no error.Child was five years old when her father killed her mother and then committed suicide. Thereafter, the Department of Health an Human Services (DHHS) took temporary protective custody of Child, who was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a). The deceased couple's wills nominated Kelly, Child's biological maternal grandmother, as guardian for Child. Kelly filed a petition for guardianship of Child, after which Petitioners filed a petition for adoption. The county court denied the petition for adoption on the basis that it was not in Child's best interests to grant the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its best interests analysis. View "In re Adoption of Faith F." on Justia Law

At issue is whether the Commonwealth of Virginia would recognize a divorce granted by a foreign nation to its own citizens when neither spouse was domiciled in that nation at the time of the divorce. The question arises from Petitioner’s marriage to a woman after the woman and another man — both Ghanaian citizens — divorced pursuant to Ghanaian customary law. At the time of the divorce, the woman and man were lawful permanent residents of the United States, and neither was present or domiciled in Ghana. Based on his marriage to the woman, Petitioner became a lawful permanent resident of the United States. But when Petitioner applied to become a naturalized citizen, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that he and the woman were not validly married. USCIS reasoned that under controlling Virginia law, the Commonwealth would not recognize a divorce granted by a nation where neither spouse was domiciled at the time of the divorce. Petitioner sought a review of the decision in the district court, which granted summary judgment to USCIS. Petitioner then brought this appeal.   The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant Petitioner’s naturalization application. The court concluded as a matter of comity, Virginia would recognize this otherwise valid divorce granted by a foreign nation to its own citizens, regardless of the citizens’ domicile at the time. The court explained it rejected only USCIS’s argument that pursuant to present Virginia law, the Commonwealth would refuse to recognize a divorce granted by a foreign nation to its own citizens simply because neither was domiciled in the foreign nation at the time of the divorce. View "Michael Adjei v. Alejandro Mayorkas" on Justia Law

Mother gave birth to Minor’s half-brother and tested positive for drugs at the hospital, triggering a referral to the Solano County Social Services Department. Mother abandoned the newborn at the hospital. Three-year-old Minor’s whereabouts were unknown. The Department contacted Father, a truck driver, then in Michigan. Father explained that Mother left Minor in the care of a friend. The Department confirmed that Minor was safe in the friend’s custody. Father had cared for Minor for several months in 2019 when Mother was using methamphetamines and alcohol. Mother “got sober” in 2020. The Department filed a petition alleging Minor was at substantial risk of serious harm due to Mother’s ongoing substance abuse and that Father knew or should have known Mother was continuing to use drugs but left Minor with her “without a safety plan.” Father entered a denial.The court of appeal affirmed orders regarding detention and jurisdiction but reversed the disposition order. The Department must establish by clear and convincing evidence that placing Minor with Father “would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child,” The record lacked substantial evidence to support such a finding. The juvenile court also abused its discretion by ordering Father to engage in recommended reunification services—substance abuse testing, completion of a parenting class, and participation in a parent-partner program. The record lacks any evidence that Father uses or abuses narcotics or alcohol. Father co-parented three children of his prior marriage, all now adults. View "In re M.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the decision of the district court continuing a harassment protection against Justina R. in favor of Diedra T. and Diedra's two minor children, holding that the order must be modified to exclude the children.Dustina, Diedra, and Diedra's husband had sexual relations. Diedra later filed a petition to obtain a harassment protection order against Justina on behalf of herself and her children, alleging that after Diedra had ended the sexual relationship Justina had harassed her. The district court ruled in Deidra's favor to the as to the harassment protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to continue the harassment protection order in Diedra, and there was no violation of Justina's due process rights during the proceedings; and (2) the record showed insufficient evidence to warrant continuing the harassment protection order as to the children. View "Diedra T. v. Justina R." on Justia Law

The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) appealed a circuit court order dismissing its neglect petitions against respondent, mother of H.B. and G.B. (Mother). DCYF argued the trial court erred when it dismissed the petitions because DCYF did not meet its burden of proving that any deprivation of parental care or control, subsistence, or education identified in RSA 169-C:3, XIX(b) was “not due primarily to the lack of financial means” of the parents. RSA 169-C:3, XIX(b) (2022). To this, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concurred, vacated the decision, and remanded for further proceedings on whether H.B. and G.B. were neglected. View "In re H.B.; In re G.B." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from a post-judgment order denying her request for the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) and instead adopting the QDRO proposed by Respondent. Appellant contends that the family court erred in two respects when it signed Respondent’s QDRO. First, the court erroneously used Respondent’s rank and salary at the time of the parties’ separation to calculate the community interest in Respondent’s pension instead of his final rank and salary at the time of his retirement, as required by the time rule. Second, the court committed legal error by ordering that Appellant’s property interest in the pension reverts to Respondent if she predeceases him.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court explained that by mandating that upon Appellant’s death, her share of the pension would revert to Respondent, Respondent’s QDRO effectively revives the terminable interest rule, contravening Family Code section 2610. Thus, the court held that the provision cannot stand. View "Marriage of Belthius" on Justia Law