Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court renewing a domestic abuse protection order, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that renewal of the protection order was necessary to prevent future harm.The domestic abuse protection order at issue issued on March 18, 2020. The protected party was Margaret Garrison, and the order was against her former spouse, Logan Otto. On March 17, 2021 Garrison filed a petition to renew the domestic abuse and protection order. The court issued an ex parte renewal of the ex parte domestic protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in ultimately determining that renewal was justified. View "Garrison v. Otto" on Justia Law

The co-trustees and a beneficiary of the trust filed petitions under Probate Code section 850 alleging that defendant misappropriated trust assets and committed elder abuse against the trustor. The litigants settled and the guardian ad litem for defendant's minor children entered into an agreement with the co-trustees and certain trust beneficiaries, but not defendant (the first GAL agreement). Defendant and the children subsequently challenge the trial court's orders (1) enforcing the oral settlement agreement; (2) granting the GAL's petition to approve the second GAL agreement; (3) appointing the GAL as the children's guardian ad litem in certain probate cases; and (4) denying defendant's motion to remove the GAL as the children's guardian ad litem.In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's orders and concluded that defendant failed to establish procedural and substantive unconscionability. The court rejected the argument that the GAL lacked capacity to make a contract in Jacqueline's name. The court also concluded that the trial court did not err by determining that defendant is precluded from repudiating the agreement because her objection is inconsistent with the children's interests. Furthermore, the court rejected the children's contention that they disaffirmed the settlement agreement and the second GAL agreement when they filed their repudiations of the agreements. Finally, the court concluded that there was no conflict of interest and thus no error in denying defendant's motion to remove the GAL as guardian ad litem. View "Chui v. Chui" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court setting Appellant's support obligation above the amount indicated by the latest version of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 10 - Child Support Guidelines, holding that the court erred in its calculation of Appellant's child support obligation.At issue before the Supreme Court was construction of new provisions in the guidelines setting support when a child's parents earn more than $30,000 per month. In this case, the court concluded that $6500 was an appropriate monthly support obligation. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by ordering support that exceeded the highest chart amount. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's ruling constituted a clear error of law and that the court's findings were not consistent with the plain language of revised Administrative Order No. 10. View "Parnell v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the trial court's judgment dismissing Mother's post-termination motion to intervene in her biological daughter Riley's juvenile case to obtain an order for visitation, holding that Mother failed to establish the party status necessary to support this Court's jurisdiction to consider her appeal.After the juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights she filed a motion for post-termination visitation with Riley, citing this Court's decision in In re Ava W., 248 A.3d 675 (Conn. 2020), as support for the trial court's authority to issue a post termination of parental rights visitation order. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Mother's appeal, holding that, post termination, biological parents lack a legally cognizable interest to support a right to intervene in the juvenile case for the purpose of seeking visitation. View "In re Riley B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court modifying Father's child support obligation, holding that the court abused its discretion by modifying child support without first having sufficient information about Father's finances.Pursuant to an agreement incorporated into their divorce decree, Mother had primary custody of the parties' three children, and Father paid no child support. The State later petitioned to modify child support. The court entered a temporary support order on the State's petition, determining that Father's presumptive child support obligation was $832 per month. Father subsequently filed a motion seeking primary custody and an adjustment of child support. The court denied custody but modified Father's child support obligation to $134 per month. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not have sufficient information about Father's finances and abused its discretion by modifying child support in the absence of such information. View "Tucker v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Plaintiff, in her capacity as Administratrix for the Estate of Lisa Bicknell, following a grant of summary judgment, holding that there was no error.When the Defendant and the decedent were married Lisa participated in a 401(k) retirement plan. Lisa designated her then-husband, Defendant, as a contingent death beneficiary. After the couple divorced, Lisa died without a will and without having changed Defendant's designation as beneficiary of the retirement plan. Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant from transferring or conveying any portion of the money he had or may receive from the plan, claiming that Defendant had waived all interest in the retirement plan under the parties' property settlement agreement. The trial court ordered that the retirement funds be transferred to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant waived any and all interest in the retirement plan, and no genuine issue of material fact remained in dispute. View "Morgan v. Bicknell" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's order denying father's Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and vacated the order terminating parental rights as to the child. The court concluded that the evidence before the juvenile court in this case was woefully inadequate to support a finding that the Department exercised reasonable diligence trying to find father, given the unique facts already known to the Department. The court also concluded that the juvenile court erred in relying on Mia's best interests as a basis for overcoming the lack of notice to father and denying father's section 388 petition. Furthermore, the record does not support the Department's implied argument that father was to blame for the delay. Considered against the absence of any documentary evidence showing that the Department timely provided father a copy of the petition or required notices about how to assert paternity and request appointment of counsel, the court found prejudicial error. The court remanded for a new jurisdiction and disposition hearing as to father only. View "In re Mia M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court ordering equitable division of a jointly-owned retirement annuity, holding that the district court erred.The property settlement agreement that the parties entered into distributed more than $3 million in assets that were either Charles "Bo" Harms's premarital assets or primarily gifted to or inherited by Bo. At issue was whether a remainder clause in the parties' property settlement agreement providing that "all other real and personal property" would be distributed to Bo provided for distribution to him of all assets not otherwise identified. Sharon Harms argued that the parties' annuity was mistakenly omitted from the parties' settlement agreement. Bo filed a motion for contempt, claiming that Sharon was noncompliant with the final decree for failing to transfer the annuity to Bo. The district court denied Bo's motion and ordered that the annuity be equitably divided. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in finding that there was a mutual mistake in omitting the annuity from the settlement agreement. View "In re Marriage of Harms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting the parties in this case a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, dividing the parties' marital estate, and awarding joint custody of the parties' child, holding that there was no error.Both parties in this case - Elida Mezini and Leart Mezini - appealed the judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision pending entry of final judgment of the family court, holding (1) there was no error in the trial justice's equitable distribution of the marital property; (2) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in setting Leart's child support obligations; and (3) as to any remaining issues, the trial court did not err. View "Mezini v. Mezini" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that marital agreements that consider fault or misconduct when dividing the marital property are not enforceable.The parties in this case entered in a postnuptial agreement that if Husband engaged in extramarital affairs or physically harmed his wife Wife would receive most of the parties' joint assets. Husband later filed a complaint for divorce. The family court held that the marital agreement at issue was unenforceable as violating statutory policy and principles of no-fault divorce and equitable distribution. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacated the family court's decision, holding that the marital agreement was valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the marital agreement violated public policy and was therefore unenforceable. View "Crofford v. Adachi" on Justia Law