Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court remanded this termination of parental rights matter for further proceedings, holding that the findings of fact supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence in the record were insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Father's parental rights in his daughter Annie were subject to termination.Petitioners sought to terminate Father's parental rights based on the fact that he failed some of the drug screens he admitted to between 2018 and 2020 and failed to submit to others. The trial court, however, found Father to have completed a required substance abuse assessment, completed twenty hours of substance abuse treatment, attended visits with his daughter, and completed a parenting program, among other things. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights in his daughter. At issue on appeal was whether the findings of fact that were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence in the record were sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Father’s parental rights for neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. The Supreme Court remanded the matter, holding that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to support its termination decision. View "In re A.N.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part a permanency planning order awarding legal guardianship of Mother's two minor children to Grandmother, holding that the court of appeals did not err.After a hearing, the trial court awarded guardianship of the two children to Grandmother, concluding that placement of the children with Mother would be contrary to their health, safety, welfare and best interest. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the best interest of the child supported an award of guardianship to Grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's factual findings sufficed to support its conclusion that Mother had acted inconsistently with her constitutionally-protected right to parent her children; and (2) the trial court did not err in applying the best interest of the child standard in awarding guardianship of the children to Grandmother. View "In re B.R.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress, see N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). The court further found that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court's unchallenged findings did not fully support its adjudication of neglect as grounds for termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by concluding that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect and terminating Father's parental rights on this ground. View "In re K.Q." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Grandparents' appeal in this case involving a parentage issue and the enforceability of a "co-parenting agreement," holding that the current posture of this case left Grandparents without standing in their personal capacities.Grandparents, as next friends of L.L. and in their personal capacities, filed a petition for determination of paternity and grandparent rights and seeking joint custody of L.L. The district court found that it had jurisdiction of L.L., Grandparents, and Mother and concluded (1) joint legal custody is only between parents and not between a parent and grandparents, and (2) the purported co-parenting agreement did not fit within grandparent visitation rights. The Supreme Court dismissed Grandparents' appeal, holding that Grandparents lost standing when this appeal narrowed down to their personal claim. View "In re L.L." on Justia Law

Brandy filed a probate petition seeking to be appointed the personal representative of her late husband’s (Scott) estate. The trial court denied her petition based on a premarital agreement that waived Brandy’s interests in her husband’s separate property. The court named his parents as co-administrators of the estate. The court of appeal held Brandy was entitled to introduce extrinsic evidence in support of her argument that she and her late husband mistakenly believed the premarital agreement would apply only in the event of divorce, rather than upon death. On remand, the trial court found that the mistake was a unilateral mistake on Brandy’s part and that she was not entitled to rescission. The court expressly found “there was insufficient evidence that Scott encouraged or fostered Brandy’s mistaken belief.”The court of appeal affirmed. Because Brandy failed to read the agreement and meet with her attorney to discuss it before signing it, she bore the risk of her mistake and is not entitled to rescission. View "Estate of Eskra" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to open the judgment in this marital dissolution case on the basis of fraud, holding that the appellate court properly affirmed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to open.Following a trial, the dissolution court issued a decision dissolving the parties' marriage and issuing certain financial orders. Defendant later filed this motion claiming that Plaintiff had committed fraud by denying the existence of a sexual relationship with another man during the course of the marriage and by testifying that Defendant had physically assaulted her. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion to open. View "Conroy v. Idlibi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying Father's motion to discharge his child support arrearage, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.After the parents of K.S. separated Father was ordered to pay mother child support. Ten years later, K.S. was removed from Mother's home due to a child abuse and neglect petition and placed in Father's custody. When Father took custody the circuit court suspended Father's child support obligation. Father, however, owed almost $25,000 in past unpaid child support and interest. Father filed a motion to discharge the child support arrearage, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly found that it was prohibited from retroactively modifying or canceling child support awards except in limited circumstances not present in this case. View "In re K.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the family court denying the motion of the Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, ex rel. Child Support Enforcement's (Cabinet) to set aside an agreed judgment regarding the paternity of a child born out of wedlock, holding that the underlying judgment was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The Cabinet brought this action to set aside the agreed judgment in this case, arguing that the judgment was void and entered due to fraud and should be side aside under Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02. The family court denied the motion as untimely, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the family court acted outside its statutory authority in adjudicating non-paternity without a corollary determination of paternity as to an identified father; and (2) because the judgment was void, rule 60.02(e) mandated that the judgment be set aside. View "Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services ex rel. Child Support Enforcement v. B.N.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that three dependency-neglect-abuse (DNA) petitions filed by the guardian ad litem (GAL) of three children against the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) should have been dismissed.The GAL brought this action raising concerns regarding the conduct of the CHFS with respect to three children committed to its temporary custody. The CHFS filed a motion to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the neglect petitions did not state a viable cause of action because the CHFS was entitled to governmental immunity. The family court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the General Assembly waived the CHFS's right to governmental immunity in DNA matters. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' decisions and remanded for dismissal of the GAL's DNA petitions, holding (1) the GAL's allegations should have been addressed by a motion in the context of the existing DNA cases rather than in separate actions; and (2) in any event, the petitions were moot on their face. View "Commonwealth v. Baker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court declining Father's request for a contempt citation after Mother moved the parties' child to another school in a district town without obtaining a modification of the marital dissolution decree, holding that the district court erred.The decree in this case, a settlement agreement, and a parenting plan granted joint legal and physical custody of the parties' child to Mother and Father. When Mother moved with the child, Father requested a contempt citation. The district court declined the request, and the Supreme Court reversed. On remand, the district court found no violation or willfulness. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in its assessment of Mother's actions and in its interpretation of the decree. View "Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal" on Justia Law