Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Chase Eikom appealed a second amended judgment entered after he moved to amend parenting time. He argued the district court erred in denying his request for parenting time on all major holidays and to extend time during the summer. Eikom also argued the court erred in establishing the requirement his parenting time be reduced if he misses four or more weekends in a year. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court could “discern the rationale behind the district court’s findings, and the findings are supported by the evidence, the court did not err.” Judgment was affirmed. View "Eikom v. Eikom" on Justia Law

Plaintiff S.C. appealed a circuit court order denying her request for a domestic violence protective order against defendant G.C. The trial court concluded plaintiff did not meet her burden of proving a credible present threat to her safety based upon her admitted presence in defendant’s home during the timeframe of the alleged abuse. On appeal, plaintiff argued the court erred as a matter of law when it relied on her in-person contact with defendant as the sole basis for its decision. She also contended that the court erred when it made certain evidentiary, trial management, and other rulings that deprived her of a fair hearing and violated her due process rights. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed it was legal error for the circuit court to rely solely on plaintiff’s contact with defendant in denying her petition, and therefore vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "S.C. v. G.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the decree entered by the superior court terminating Mother's parental rights and remanded this case for a new trial, holding that the conduct of the trial violated Mother's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 10 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.On the first day of the two-day virtual bench trial conducted in this case was afflicted by technological issues, resulting in Mother's inability to participate and interruptions to the testimony of certain witnesses. The virtual trial resumed two days later. The judge ultimately issued a decree terminating Mother's parental rights to her child. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding that the trial was conducted in violation of Mother's right to due process. View "In re Adoption of Patty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming the family court's order setting aside a Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) between Petitioner and Respondent on the grounds that it was enforceable because there was no meeting of the minds, holding that there was no error.Petitioner filed for divorce from Respondent on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The parties participated in mediation and entered into the MSA that gave rise to this action. After a hearing, the family court concluded that the parties did not have a "meeting of the minds" in reaching the MSA and determined that the entirety of the MSA was unenforceable. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower tribunals did not err in finding that the MSA was invalid. View "Donna S. v. Travis S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the trial court's planning order in this case and remanding the case for additional findings, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that Father waived his constitutional argument.After a hearing, the trial court granted guardianship of Father's two children, Jimmy and Lola, to the maternal grandparents. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's permanency planning order, holding that the trial court erred by failing to make necessary findings under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-906.1(n) but that Father had waived his argument that the trial court erred by granting guardianship without concluding beforehand that Father was an unfit parent or had acted inconsistently with his constitutional right to parent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father's unpreserved constitutional arguments were waived on appeal. View "In re J.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her son, Scott, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Scott's best interests.After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated that grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights to Scott under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's dispositional findings were supported by competent evidence; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in Scott's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. View "In re S.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, Lucy and Joseph, holding that there was no error.Petitioners, court-appointed custodians of the two juveniles, filed petition to terminate Parents' parental rights on the grounds of willful abandonment. The trial court eventually entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights to Lucy and Joseph, finding that Mother had willfully abandoned the children and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motion to continue. View "In re L.A.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child Becky, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights due to willful abandonment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7).Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights. The trial court adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights on the basis that he willfully abandoned Becky for six consecutive months and further determined that termination of Father's parental rights was in Becky's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(7). View "In re B.E.V.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child holding that the trial court did not err.The Department of Social Services petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights to her child on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving him in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the child's removal. The trial court adjudicated that both grounds for termination existed and that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that a ground existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). View "In re B.R.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the superior court terminating Father's parental rights to his son, holding that the trial court's denial of Father's motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing undermined the fairness of that hearing and that the trial court prejudicially erred.On the day of the adjudicatory termination hearing, Father was unable to appear due to a lockdown at his prison due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court denied Father's motion to continue the hearing and later terminated his parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding that by denying Father's motion to continue the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court violated Father's rights to due process and undermined the fundamental fairness of that hearing. View "In re C.A.B." on Justia Law