Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Kimberlyn Seals and her counsels of record, Felecia Perkins, Jessica Ayers, and Derek D. Hopson, Sr., appealed a chancery court's: (1) Contempt Order entered on April 8, 2020; (2) the Temporary Order entered on April 28, 2020; (3) the Jurisdictional Final Judgment entered on June 16, 2020; (4) the Final Judgment on Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on June 18, 2020; and (5) the Amended Final Judgment entered on June 18, 2020. Seals argued the chancellor lacked jurisdiction and erroneously found them to be in contempt of court. These orders arose out of a paternity suit filed by the father of Seals' child, born 2017. A hearing was set for April 7, 2020, but Seals sought a continuance. The motion was deemed untimely, and that the court expected Seals and her counsel to appear at the April 7 hearing. When Seals and her counsel failed to appear, the court entered the contempt orders at issue before the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Supreme Court: (1) affirmed the chancellor’s finding that Perkins and Ayers were in direct criminal contempt for their failure to appear at a scheduled April 7 hearing; (2) vacated the $3,000 sanction because it exceeded the penalties prescribed by statute; (3) affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees to opposing counsel; (4) found the chancellor erred in finding Hopson to be in direct criminal contempt for failing to appear - "Constructive criminal contempt charges require procedural safeguards of notice and a hearing;" and (5) found the chancellor erroneously found the attorneys to be in direct criminal contempt for violation of the September 2019 Temporary Order. "If proved, such acts are civil contempt." The matter was remanded for a determination of whether an indirect civil contempt proceeding should be commenced. View "Seals, et al. v. Stanton" on Justia Law

The parties obtained a divorce in 2016. In 2020, Jennifer Bryant filed a motion in which she asked the chancellor, pursuant to Section 17 of the property settlement agreement (which was incorporated into the divorce decree), to determine which school the three minor children should attend: Hernando or Lake Cormorant. The father, Kenneth Bryant, wanted the children to go to school at Lake Cormorant because his wife, Alicia Bryant, was a teacher there. The chancellor decided that it was in the children’s best interest to go to school in the Hernando public school district. Kenneth appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor's decision. The Court of Appeals determined that the language of the property settlement agreement authorized the chancellor to reevaluate the matter and that “[a] property settlement agreement cannot deprive the court of its authority to modify support and educational needs of a child.” The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals. Therefore, it affirmed. View "Bryant v. Bryant" on Justia Law

A mother appeals an order terminating parental rights over her son, based on a deficient initial inquiry about Indian ancestry. The only source of information about ancestry was the mother. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services could have satisfied its inquiry obligations by asking for contact information and making a few phone calls.   The Second Appellate District conditionally reversed and remanded to allow the Department and juvenile court fully to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. Section 1901 et seq.) (the Act) and related California law. The court reasoned that because the Department does not argue the issue and because the effect tribal involvement may have had on this case is unknown, the son’s adoptive placement does not establish harmlessness. The court held that, after completing the initial inquiry, there is no reason to believe the son is an Indian child, the court shall reinstate its order terminating parental rights. View "In re Oscar H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court granting a divorce to Husband and Wife on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, holding that the circuit court erred in part.On appeal, Husband raised challenges regarding issues involving child custody and support, the valuation and division of marital assets, and attorney fees. Wife appealed the circuit court's rulings regarding the grounds for divorce, property division and valuation, and attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court's findings were insufficient to support its conclusion that certain buy-out funds should be excluded from the marital estate and in setting the property aside as non-marital; and (2) the trial court erred by sua sponte ordering the production of the parties' tax returns post-divorce without seeking in put from the parties on the relevant considerations for a protective order. View "Dunham v. Sabers" on Justia Law

Appellee Andrea Milne dated Appellant Howard Hudson. During an argument, Hudson became violent with Milne. Milne sought a civil protection order from the McIntosh County district court, as the couple dated in in Eufaula, Oklahoma. She stated in her application, and testified at a hearing, that Hudson first attacked her in a car, slamming her head into the dashboard. When they got to her house, he hit her and threw her across her yard. Finally, he pushed his way into her house, grabbed some of his belongings, and struck her in front of her children. When the children came to her aid, he absconded, but returned later and threatened to burn the house down. Milne testified that after the afternoon of violent acts, he stalked her at home, around town, and at her workplace. This application and testimony, though not tested by investigation or cross-examination, "were certainly enough to justify an order of protection." Hudson objected, claiming that the district court had no jurisdiction to enter the eventual order. Hudson argued that because McIntosh County was within the boundaries of the Muscogee Reservation, Milne was a member of the Muscogee Nation, and Hudson was a member of the Cherokee Nation, the McIntosh District Court had no jurisdiction to enter a civil protective order against him. The trial court denied the objection and entered the civil protection order. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Milne v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the district court granting Wife's complaint for divorce, holding that the trial court's factual findings were not supported by competent record evidence.On appeal, Husband argued that the trial court erred in determining that a 1968 Ford Mustang was a gift to Wife and setting it aside for her as her nonmarital property and in awarding a 2013 Honda Rancher to Wife. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding (1) because the parties did not present evidence of under what circumstances the 1968 Ford Mustang was acquired the trial court lacked an adequate evidentiary basis from which it could award the vehicle to set it aside for one of the parties; and (2) because there was no evidence that the parties owned a 2013 Honda Rancher at the time of the final hearing the trial court erroneously awarded one to Wife. View "Mitchell v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) does not apply to out-of-state, noncustodial parents seeking custody of their children who are not in custody of New York social services agencies.ICPC is an interstate agreement to follow certain procedures in connection with sending children across state borders "for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption." In 2012, Suffolk County Department of Social Services (DSS) removed Child from the custody of Mother, a New York resident, and placed Child in foster care. In 2013, an application was made under the ICPC to North Carolina, where Father was a resident, for the approval of Father's home as a suitable placement for Child. The North Carolina authority denied the request. In 2017, Father commenced these custody proceedings arguing that it was in Child's best interests to award him sole custody. Family Court dismissed the petitions without a hearing, concluding that the ICPC's requirements did not apply to placement of Child with Father because Child was in the custody of DSS in New York. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ICPC does not apply to out-of-state noncustodial parents seeking custody of their children. View "Matter of D.L. v S.B." on Justia Law

M.H. (Father) and A.C. (Mother) are the parents of K.H., now 20 months old. Due to his parents’ drug use, K.H. was taken into protective custody following his birth and made a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).1 The juvenile court subsequently terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights under section 366.26,2 and Father timely appealed. The sole claim advanced by Father is the alleged violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) and related California law. Father contends Kern County Department of Human Services (the Department) and the juvenile court failed to comply with their affirmative and continuing duties of inquiry under section 224.2, subdivision (a), the Department failed to comply with its broad duty of inquiry set forth under section 224.2, subdivision (b), and remand for an adequate inquiry is required.   The Fifth Appellate conditionally reversed the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to order the Department to comply with the inquiry and documentation provisions set forth in section 224.2, subdivision (b), and rule 5.481(a)(5). If, after determining that an adequate inquiry was made consistent with the reasoning in this opinion, the court finds that ICWA applies, the court shall vacate its existing order and proceed in compliance with ICWA and related California law. If the court instead finds that ICWA does not apply, its ICWA finding. View "In re K.H." on Justia Law

Father of the minor M.R. appealed a trial court’s judgment after it freed the minor from father’s custody and control, and freed the minor for adoption by the maternal great-grandmother (grandmother). Father contended the court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) because: (1) the court-appointed investigator and the court failed to investigate extended family members; and (2) the court made no findings as to whether the minor was an Indian child. The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded for limited proceedings to ensure compliance with the ICWA. View "Adoption of M.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court terminating Petitioner's parental rights to his six children and denying his motion to reconsider the court's prior order denying his motion for an improvement period, holding that there was no error.At an adjudicatory hearing, based on Petitioner's admissions to the unsuitable and unsafe living conditions at the time of the emergency removal, the circuit court adjudged the children to be neglected children. Petitioner moved for a post-adjudicatory improvement period to secure a more suitable residence that would be habitable for the children. The circuit court denied the motion. Thereafter, the court terminated Petitioner's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding (1) there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect that led to the removal of the children could be corrected in the near future and that termination of Petitioner's parental rights was appropriate; and (2) termination of Petitioner's parental rights was necessary for the welfare of the children. View "In re J.D.-1" on Justia Law