Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition alleging that the minor had been sexually abused by her father. Mother was not named as an offending parent in the petition. The juvenile court found that the Department failed to prove the sexual abuse allegations against the father but did not dismiss the petition. Instead, the court found that the evidence supported jurisdiction based upon unpleaded allegations of emotional abuse by the mother, a position urged by the minor’s counsel but opposed by the Department. The court subsequently entered a disposition order.The court of appeal reversed. The juvenile court violated the mother’s due process rights when it established jurisdiction based on the conduct of a parent the Department never alleged was an offending parent, and on a factual and legal theory not raised in the Department’s petition. Parents have a due process right to be informed of the nature of the proceedings and the allegations upon which the deprivation of custody is predicated so that they can make an informed decision on whether to appear, prepare, and contest the allegations. View "In re S.V." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court finding that a surviving wife (Wife) did not voluntarily enter into a premarital agreement that waived any right she had to the property of her deceased husband (Husband) and that the agreement was unconscionable, holding that the circuit court erred in invalidating the agreement under the provisions of S.D. Codified Laws 29A-2-213(b) and S.D. Codified Laws 25-2-21(a)(2).After Husband died, Wife petitioned the circuit court for, inter alia, her elective share and homestead allowance. At issue was the validity of the premarital agreement signed by Wife. The circuit court found that Wife did not voluntarily sign the agreement and that the agreement was unconscionable. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not clearly err in finding that Wife did not voluntarily sign the agreement and that the agreement was void and unenforceable on this basis; but (2) erred in finding that the agreement was unconscionable. View "In re Estate of Eichstadt" on Justia Law

Issac Vassel appealed a district court’s divorce judgment and calculation of child support entered following a bench trial. Issac Vassel and Felice Vassel were in a relationship in 2009 and married in 2015. The parties had three minor children together, born in 2010, 2012, and 2016. Felice attempted to file an action for divorce in or around September 2020. The summons and complaint were returned undeliverable. Felice filed a summons and complaint in North Dakota on October 15, 2020. Issac answered and filed a counterclaim on March 15, 2021. A bench trial was held on March 1, 2022. The parties testified at trial. Issac contended the district court erred by awarding Felice back child support because the award was not supported by the record. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the award. View "Vassel v. Vassel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case in which the district court prohibited Father from encouraging his children to adopt the teachings of any religion without Mother's consent, holding that Father had a fundamental right to encourage his children in the practice of religion and that the district court's prohibition was not narrowly tailored to address the harms identified by the court.When they married, Father and Mother were both members of the Order, a polygamous religious community. Based on the parties' inability to agree on decisions regarding their four children, the district court granted sole legal custody to Mother and prohibited Father from encouraging the children to adopt the teachings of any religion. The Supreme Court remanded this case to the district court, holding (1) parents have a fundamental right to encourage their children in the practice of religion, and this right is not dependent upon legal custody; (2) strict scrutiny applies to this case; and (3) the district court's prohibition is not narrowly tailored to address the identified harms. View "Kingston v. Kingston" on Justia Law

T.K. (mother) appealed an order denying her petition to terminate D.D.G.’s, parental rights to the children J.J.G., M.K.G., and O.J.G and from an order denying her motion for a new trial. T.K. and D.D.G., the father, had three children together: J.J.G. born in 2008; M.K.G. born in 2009; and O.J.G. born in 2014. In September 2021, the mother petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights, alleging the father abandoned the children. She alleged the father has a history of drug use, he abused her in front of the children, he has not seen or communicated with the two younger children for three years, he had one visit with the oldest child in 2019 and another visit in 2020, and he has not provided any financial support for the children. An evidentiary hearing was held; and the mother, father, and other relatives testified. The district court denied the mother’s petition, concluding there was not clear and convincing evidence the father abandoned the children. The mother moved for a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59. T.K. argued the district court erred by failing to terminate D.D.G.’s parental rights, there was clear and convincing evidence he abandoned the children, and the court erred by denying her motion for a new trial. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial. View "Interest of J.J.G., M.K.G. & O.J.G." on Justia Law

N.L., Sr. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights. A.H. and N.L., Sr. were the biological mother and father of N.L., Jr., born in 2015 and J.L., born in 2018. In August 2020, N.L. and J.L. were removed from their home after law enforcement performed a welfare check. N.L., Sr. argues the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights, the Grand Forks County Human Service Zone (GFCHSZ) lacked standing, and the court erred in finding GFCHSZ met the requirements for termination of parental rights under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-19. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the termination. View "Interest of N.L." on Justia Law

James Senger appealed a divorce judgment entered following a bench trial. He argued the district court erred by retroactively applying an amended and reenacted version of N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1) in valuing the marital estate and, thereby, erred by considering inadmissible evidence and incorrectly valuing the marital home and bank accounts. He further argued the court erred by distributing marital property and by awarding Denise Senger spousal support. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the court’s award to James for unaccounted for cash withdrawals as a marital asset and remanded with instructions to further explain its reasoning on any unjustified use or dissipation of marital assets by James. The district court's judgment was affirmed in all other respects, and the matter remanded for reconsideration of spousal support in light of any changes made in the division of property. View "Senger v. Senger" on Justia Law

This is an appeal from a family court’s self-described sua sponte sanctions order under Family Code section 271.1 The family court judge ordered Appellants (Mother) and her attorney, to each pay $10,000 to Respondent (Father) and partly justified the sanctions on its finding that Appellants unjustifiably accused the judge of being biased (or appearing to be biased).   The Second Appellate District considered whether the sanctions order represents an abuse of the family court’s discretion and reversed the family court’s order. The court explained that as to the attorney, the family court’s sanctions award is obviously wrong: Section 271 permits imposing sanctions only on a party, not a party’s attorney, and the sanctions award against the attorney is, therefore, improper. As against Mother, the sanctions award is an error, too, even if a marginally less obvious one. There is a question as to whether section 271 even authorizes a family court to issue sanctions on its own motion, but the court explained it need not decide that issue because the conduct relied on by the family court to impose sanctions here, even considered in the aggregate, does not rise to the level of meriting sanctions. The family court abused its discretion in concluding otherwise. View "Featherstone v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Georgia Supreme Court's review centered on whether a grandmother’s action for visitation rights to her biological granddaughter (the minor child of her deceased daughter) under OCGA § 19-7-3 was precluded by the adoption of the child by her stepmother, and whether certain subsections of the grandparent visitation statute were unconstitutional, among other issues. The Supreme Court concluded that: (1) the grandmother was authorized to pursue an action for visitation rights to her granddaughter despite the adoption; and (2) with respect to the constitutional challenges, the Court needed only to consider the constitutionality of one of the three subsections at issue—which it held to be constitutional. Accordingly, the trial court's rulings were affirmed. View "Barhhill, et al. v. Alford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals determining that Karen Michael held an equitable lien on David Miller's Ram Sensors, Inc. stock shares securing David's current obligation to pay monthly spousal support to Karen, holding that an equitable lien did not exist on the stock to secure the current obligation.When Karen and David divorced, the separation agreement incorporated into their final judgment entry of divorce provided that David would pay Karen $15,000 per month in spousal support for twenty years. Karen agreed to relinquish all rights she may have had in Ram Sensors, and David agreed to secure his spousal support obligations. Later, Karen filed a postdecree pleading against David and Cody seeking a declaration that David's ownership of the Ram Sensors stock secured his obligations under the divorce decree and requesting that the court order Cody Miller, the parties' son, to transfer David's stock to her. The court granted partial summary judgment to Karen, concluding that she held a perfected lien in the Ram Sensors stock and an equitable lien on the stock. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals misconstrued the separation agreement and erred when it recognized an equitable lien securing David's current support obligation. View "Michael v. Miller" on Justia Law