Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Debtor and Creditor have three children. Their decree of dissolution was entered in 2008. Domestic support and child custody issues have continued to be litigated. In 2017, Creditor obtained primary custody of the children; he filed a Motion for Child Support and Motion for Contempt in Family Court. A monthly support amount was determined. Pre-petition, the Family Court established that the parties would split the cost of the childrens' medical care and extra-curricular activities. Creditor was seeking reimbursement for Debtor’s share of incurred expenses when Debtor’s bankruptcy petition was filed. The Family Court, post-petition, found Debtor in contempt of a prior order.Debtor filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court requesting sanctions for violation of the automatic stay for the post-petition hearing and Creditor’s collection efforts made pursuant to Family Court orders. The Bankruptcy Court found that some actions violated the automatic stay and awarded attorneys’ fees as actual damages and punitive damages. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. The Family Court hearing was conducted to modify a domestic support obligation; the hearing and subsequent garnishment order were excepted from the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(2)(A)(ii); 362(b)(2)(C). The Family Court Judgment finding Debtor in civil contempt violated the stay and is void. An order of payment, directly to Creditor, toward a pre-petition debt, also violated the stay. View "In re: Dougherty-Kelsay" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's petition filed on behalf of her minor child, SGN, for a change of surname, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition.While Father and Mother were married, they had SGN. After they divorced, Mother remarried and took the surname of her husband. Mother then filed a verified petition in the district court to change SGN's surname to Lamb-Newman because Mother would be the primary custodian and wanted SGN to share her surname and that of her half sibling. Father objected. The district court denied the petition, finding that the name change was not in SGN's best interest and that it was detrimental to Father's interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's decision to deny the name change was not an abuse of discretion. View "Lamb v. Newman" on Justia Law

Family Code section 30441 creates a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody within the past five years is detrimental to the child. If the court determines the presumption has been overcome, it must state its reasons in writing or on the record. The trial court issued a restraining order protecting a mother from the father of a child (born in 2015) and, citing the statute, granted the mother sole legal and physical custody. The court left intact a visitation schedule under which the child lived with each parent approximately half of the time. There were problems with the father not returning the child after his visitation. The court of appeal reversed the visitation order, stating that the case illustrates the need for clear and specific findings to facilitate appellate review and to inform the parties and ensure consideration of the proper factors in the first instance. The schedule amounted to joint physical custody, in violation of the statute. The trial court erred in refusing her request for a statement of decision. View "City & County of San Francisco v. H.H." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting the request of paternal relatives in Arizona to place J.Y. with them, although he barely knew them and had no bond with them. The principal reason stated by the trial court for its decision to send J.Y. to Arizona was the trial court's unfounded conclusion that the Department failed in its duty under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 to give preferential consideration to other relatives in California (not the Arizona relatives) who requested placement back when the parents were receiving reunification services. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by deciding, without any support in the record, the Department failed in its duty to assess other relatives, and by ordering removal of the child from his de facto parents although there was no evidence that removal was necessary or in the child's best interest. View "In re J.Y." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his three children based on neglect and failure to show reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the removal of the children from the home, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father challenged the trial court's conclusion that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the court's determination that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re A.N.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the trial court did not err in finding past neglect or in determining that there was a likelihood of future neglect and that termination was in the child's best interests.After a termination hearing, the trial court adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights for neglect and that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1); and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re C.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that there was a likelihood of a repetition of neglect.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her children based on neglect and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (6). On appeal, Mother challenged this determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings provided overwhelming support for the trial court's determination that there was a likelihood of a repetition of neglect. View "In re V.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, Daniel, holding that there was no merit to Father's arguments on appeal.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that Father had neglected Daniel and that there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect by Father. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). The trial court further concluded that it was in Daniel's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father challenged only the trial court's determination that there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect if Daniel was returned to Father's care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father's argument was without merit. View "In re D.I.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Rob, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to three of his children, including Rob. The court found that grounds existed for termination of Father's parental rights for neglect and failure to make reasonable progress and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. On appeal, Father alleged that the trial court abused its discretion in its best interests determination as to Rob. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Father's parental rights was in Rob's best interests. View "In re K.N.L.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his child, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the child in foster care for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The trial court also determined that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that there was a probability of a repetition of neglect if the child was returned to Father's custody and that this ground was sufficient to support the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re A.E.S.H." on Justia Law