Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Lisa and Mark Weaver married in 2016, and had one minor child, A.W., born January 2017. In November 2020, The parties agreed between themselves to split physical custody of A.W. on a roughly 60/40 basis, with Mark having three out of every four weekends. Through court-ordered mediation, the parties resolved all issues relating to their divorce except for “physical custody, visitation, and child support.” Pertinent to this appeal, Mark argued a 50/50 split would be in A.W.’s best interest because it would allow A.W. to have more time with her father and give her more “stability and structure” compared to the temporary custody arrangements the parties had been using. Lisa’s major concern with Mark’s proposed arrangement was the time it would require A.W. to be in daycare when Lisa could provide care for A.W. at home. The magistrate court issued an oral ruling at the conclusion of trial that split physical custody of A.W. between the parties on a roughly 60/40 basis. The magistrate court indicated that its decision did not give either Lisa or Mark exactly what they wanted, but was what the magistrate court believed to be in A.W.’s best interest. Lisa moved the magistrate court for permission to appeal its custody order directly to the Idaho Supreme Court, which was granted. On appeal, Lisa argued the magistrate court abused its discretion in ordering a division of custody in which one parent had custody on almost every weekend. The Supreme Court concurred the magistrate court abused its discretion in awarding Mark physical custody of A.W. on almost every weekend, finding the court acted outside the bounds of its discretion and misapplied relevant legal standards in failing to adequately consider the statutory factor concerning A.W.’s interactions and interrelationships with her parents once A.W. started school. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Weaver v. Weaver" on Justia Law

This divorce proceeding was initiated in March 2015 by Brian Colsia (husband) against his wife, Allana Kelley-Colsia (wife). Shortly before and during the divorce, Husband took several actions to hide marital assets from Wife and the court, and/or made discovery and recovery of the assets so difficult and costly that Wife would settle for less than that to which she was entitled. At the wife’s request, in February 2020, the trial court appointed a receiver to recover property that had been removed from the marital estate. This interlocutory appeal related to the trial court's order granting the motions to approve settlements filed by the receiver, Attorney Edmond J. Ford (receiver). Finding no reversible error in the trial court's grant of the motions to approve the receiver's settlements, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "In the Matter of Colsia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Deborah Foster sought to hold defendant Ray Foster, in contempt of court for failing to abide by a provision in their consent judgment of divorce. The judgment stated that defendant would pay plaintiff 50% of his military disposable retired pay accrued during the marriage or, if defendant waived a portion of his military retirement benefits in order to receive military disability benefits, that he would continue to pay plaintiff an amount equal to what she would have received had defendant not elected to receive such disability benefits. Defendant subsequently elected to receive increased disability benefits, including Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) under 10 USC 1413a. That election reduced the amount of retirement pay defendant received, which, in turn, reduced plaintiff’s share of the retirement benefits from approximately $800 a month to approximately $200 a month. Defendant did not comply with the offset provision by paying plaintiff the difference. The trial court denied plaintiff’s request to hold defendant in contempt, but ordered him to comply with the consent judgment. Defendant failed to do so, and plaintiff again petitioned for defendant to be held in contempt. Defendant did not appear at the hearing, but argued in a written response that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the issue. The court found defendant in contempt, granted a money judgment in favor of plaintiff, and issued a bench warrant for defendant’s arrest because of his failure to appear at the hearing. At a show-cause hearing in June 2014, defendant argued that 10 USC 1408 and 38 USC 5301 prohibited him from assigning his disability benefits and that the trial court had erred by not complying with federal law. The court found defendant in contempt and ordered him to pay the arrearage and attorney fees. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the type of federal preemption at issue in this case did not deprive state courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded defendant’s challenge to enforcement of the provision at issue was an improper collateral attack on a final judgment. View "Foster v. Foster" on Justia Law

At birth, Appellants’ son tested positive for methadone and marijuana. Appellant A.S., the child’s mother, admitted to using marijuana days before giving birth. The juvenile court detained J.C. and placed him with Appellant J.C.’s mother.Based on Appellants’ criminal histories and substance abuse issues, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (“the Department”), the couple’s son was declared a dependent of the court. At a 12-month hearing, appellants had not made substantial progress towards alleviating or mitigating the causes that led to their son’s placement. The court terminated Appellants’ parental rights. In doing so, the court relied on appellants’ statements that they had no known Indian ancestry.On appeal, appellants argued that the Department failed to conduct an adequate investigation into whether either parent was of Indian ancestry and that the trial court failed to ensure that the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) applied. The court held that the Department did not fulfill its duty under the ICWA because it did not speak to extended family members who were available. Additionally, the trial court failed to ensure that the Department fulfilled its duties by neglecting to ask the Department what efforts it made to ensure the ICWA did not apply.The court conditionally affirmed the trial court’s order, remanding the case to the trial court to ensure that the Department conducts the necessary inquiries, including speaking with extended family members. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

In California, the practice of “splitting” jurisdiction and/or disposition hearings, by purporting to hold them separately “as to mother” and “as to father,” was unauthorized and erroneous. The Court of Appeal concluded that jurisdiction splitting occurred in this case, and it "complicated the entire record ... caused confusion, unnecessary procedural difficulties and delays." S.J., father of minor A.J., appealed a juvenile court bypassing reunification services. He argued the juvenile court erred by denying his request for a continuance and proceeding with a disposition hearing without transporting him from his place of incarceration to the hearing. Although the Court of Appeal found error in the manner in which these proceedings were conducted, but it did not find error in denying father a continuance of the hearing. The juvenile court's orders were affirmed, but the Court reiterated that jurisdiction splitting was "unauthorized and erroneous," and in this case, " resulted in the (likely unintentional) forfeiture of appellant’s claim on appeal." View "In re A.J." on Justia Law

The Second Appellate District modified its opinion in the case dated March 3, 2022. First, the court modified references to “child support,” changing them to “spousal support.” Next, after entering a fee order on March 17, 2017, the court’s amended fee order, dated May 10, 2017, superseded that order. Further, the court rejected the respondent’s argument that the trial court’s arithmetic regarding the fee award was in error. The court reasoned that the respondent’s argument is based upon a prior and superseded version of the fee order that was later modified. Finally, the disposition is changed to remove the second full sentence beginning with the words, “The attorney fee award is corrected.” Thus, the court stated that these modifications changed the judgment, and the petitions for rehearing are denied. View "Marriage of Zucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief on any of her claims of error.The Commissioner of Children and Families filed these petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights with respect to her daughter and son after Mother admitted that she had sent explicitly sexual photographs of her daughter to several persons, including a registered sex offender. During the proceedings, Mother filed four motions for a continuance. The trial court granted the first three motions but denied the fourth. The court then rendered judgments terminating Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate Mother's constitutional due process right to present a defense to the termination of her parental rights in denying the motion for a continuance. View "In re Ivory W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ruling that Jill and Shane Ailport (together, Grandparents), the grandparents of five children (collectively, Children), did not prove their right to visitation under the grandparent visitation statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-7-101, holding that Grandparents did not meet their burden of establishing that visitation was in the best interests of the children.Grandparents filed a petition against parents of Children (collectively, Parents) under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-7-101 to establish visitation rights with Children. Applying an enhanced best interest analysis, the district court concluded that Grandparents had not met their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that they were entitled to visitation over Parents' objections. View "Ailport v. Ailport" on Justia Law

Father J.R. appealed a juvenile court order finding his child, M.R., to be deprived; removing M.R. from the care, custody, and control of the parents; and placing M.R. with North Star Human Service Zone (“North Star”). Because M.R. was no longer a minor child and the order on appeal had expired, the North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "Interest of M.R." on Justia Law

Donald Burris appealed a district court order denying his motion to eliminate or reduce spousal support paid to Luann Burris. Donald argued the court erred: (1) in determining there had not been a material change in circumstances; (2) as a matter of law in not applying a 2015 statutory change; (3) in not considering his future retirement; and (4) in awarding Luann Burris attorney’s fees. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Burris v. Burris" on Justia Law