Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court dismissing Petitioner's verified miscellaneous petition for declaratory judgment, holding that there was no error.This action stemmed from the Department of Children, Youth, and Families' (DCYF) investigation into the maltreatment of Petitioner's biological grandchild, ML. DCYF placed ML with a nonrelative foster family and then terminated Petitioner's son's parental rights to ML. The foster family subsequently adopted ML. Petitioner brought this action seeking a declaration that DCYF violated its statutory obligations by not considering him as a fit and willing relative for ML's placement. The trial justice dismissed the petition after finding that Petitioner lacked standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not have standing to seek adjudication of his rights to ML when he filed his petition. View "Lacera v. Department of Children, Youth & Families" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought to prevent the enforcement of an order of the circuit court that granted the motion filed by Respondents, the maternal grandparents of R.L., for the temporary placement of R.L. in their home, holding that Petitioners, R.L.'s foster parents, established that they were entitled to the writ.After the parental rights of R.L.'s parents were terminated R.L. was placed with Petitioners. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion for temporary placement of R.L., finding that his best interests would be served by achieving permanency through adoption by them. Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court exceeded its legitimate powers and committed clear error as a matter of law by ordering R.L. to be placed with Respondents. View "State ex rel., D.B. v. Honorable Thomas A. Bedell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the family court denying Father's motion seeking to modify a parenting plan for his daughter, E.M., due to substantial changes in circumstances and awarding attorney fees to Mother, holding that the family court's finding of no substantial change in circumstances was clearly erroneous.When E.M. was two years old, Father and Mother signed an agreed parenting plan. Three years later, Mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, alleging that the circumstances had substantially changed due to his job change, Mother's joining the workforce and E.M.'s enrollment in kindergarten. The family court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the family court committed clear error when it found that there was no substantial change in circumstances. View "Jared M. v. Molly A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to transfer custody of A.A. to her upon finding that the transfer would not be in A.A.'s best interest, holding that there was no error.A.A. was temporarily removed from a hotel room after her father was arrested for unlawful possession of firearms. Petitioner, A.A.'s paternal grandmother, declined to take custody of the A.A. and so the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources placed A.A. with Respondents, foster parents. After the proceedings began, Petitioner intervened and filed a motion to transfer custody of the child to her. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court appropriately exercised jurisdiction in this matter; and (2) Petitioner's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "In re A.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's dispositional order terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the court erred in terminating Mother's parental rights in the absence of any evidence being presented by the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) at the dispositional hearing.Upon evidence that Mother was abusing methamphetamines Mother's three children were removed from her care and placed with their respective biological fathers. After stipulating to abuse and/or neglect and embarking upon post-adjudicatory and dispositional improvement periods Mother twice relapsed. Despite the prosecutor's failure to present any evidence on DHHR's behalf at the dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court’s dispositional order must be vacated due to DHHR’s failure to introduce evidence in support of termination. View "In re K.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court, holding that the juvenile court committed serious errors by proceeding with a hearing to determine its jurisdiction over a child and disposition of a wardship petition without an incarcerated parent's presence and without appointing counsel for the parent, but the rule of automatic reversal was unwarranted in this case.The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services filed a dependency petition alleging that two children were at risk due to Mother's ongoing substance abuse and Father's criminal history. Neither Father, who was incarcerated, nor counsel for Father appeared at the ensuing combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court sustained the petition as to both Father and Mother. Thereafter, the court terminated Father's parental rights. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was not structural error for the juvenile court to proceed with the jurisdiction and disposition hearing without Father's presence and without appointing Father an attorney. View "In re Christopher L." on Justia Law

In this termination of parental rights case the Supreme Court granted in part the motion to dismiss an appeal from the reversal of a termination of parental rights decree, holding that the case was moot.N.J. gave birth when she was fifteen. Three months later, the Department of Family and Protective Services began termination proceedings against N.J. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict terminating N.J.'s parental rights. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over N.J. The Department petitioned for review. After the Supreme Court granted the petition the Department moved to dismiss, explaining that N.J. had executed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights more than one year earlier after she had reached the age of majority. The Supreme Court dismissed the appealed portion of the case, holding that the case was moot in light of N.J.'s decision to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights. View "Texas Department of Family & Protective Services v. N.J." on Justia Law

McDonald sought letters of administration for the estate of his deceased brother, John. An affidavit averred that John’s only heirs were his parents and his siblings. McDonald had been appointed plenary guardian over John’s person and estate; thereafter, without the prior knowledge of his guardian or the court, John participated in a purported wedding ceremony with Ellizzette. The circuit court entered orders appointing Shawn as administrator and declaring John’s heirs to be John’s parents and siblings. McDonald filed but then withdrew a petition for declaration of invalidity of marriage, and filed a petition to recover assets. The court allowed Ellizzette to file a petition seeking letters of administration based on her assertion that she is John’s surviving spouse, then held that Ellizzette failed to present a prima facie case establishing the validity of the marriage. The Appellate Court remanded, finding the circuit court erred in barring Ellizzette from testifying based on the Dead Man’s Act. 735 ILCS 5/8-201.The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision. Under the Probate Act, a ward who wishes to enter into a marriage may do so only with the consent of his guardian. Ellizzette was aware at the time of the marriage that John was under guardianship, so the marriage might not be valid. No best interest finding was ever sought or made. Ellizzette could not have provided any testimony that would have been sufficient to prove the validity of the marriage and could not have been prejudiced by her inability to testify regarding the marriage. View "In re Estate of McDonald" on Justia Law

J.D. and A.D. were removed from their parents’ care in July 2017. In September 2017, the court found that the children were neglected by father and abused and neglected by mother within the meaning of RSA 169-C:3, II(c) (2014) and RSA 169-C:3, XIX(b) (Supp. 2021). In dispositional orders issued in October 2017, the court specified the conditions that the parents needed to correct and the services that DCYF would provide to facilitate reunification. In July 2020, the court found that the conditions leading to the abuse and neglect findings had not been corrected and that the parents had not demonstrated that the children would not be endangered if returned. As a result, DCYF filed petitions for termination of parental rights against both parents in August 2020. The parents appealed the termination of their parental rights to the children. But finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion or other reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed termination. View "In re J.D.; In re A.D." on Justia Law