Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the final order of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to their minor child, holding that there was no error.The court issued a final dispositional order terminating Mother's parental rights over her child and granted the Department of Social Services (DSS) full adoptive custody of the child, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that DSS made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in finding that DSS made active efforts to reunify L.N. with Mother; (2) did not clearly err in finding that termination of Mother's parental rights was the least restrictive alternative and in L.N.'s best interests; and (3) did not violate Mother's due process rights in denying her request to continue the final dispositional hearing. View "In re Interest of L.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Grandparents' motion for reconsideration of the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that, under In re Adoption of B.I., 131 N.E.3d 28, Father's reliance on a no-contact order constituted justifiable cause for his having had no contact with his children, holding that there was no error.Father, the biological father of A.K. and C.K., was convicted of murdering the children's natural mother. The juvenile court gave custody of the children to their maternal grandparents, and the court's order stated that Father shall have no contact with the children. Grandparents later filed petitions to adopt the children. At issue was whether the need to obtain Father's consent was extinguished under Ohio Rev. Code 3107.07(A). The probate court determined that Father's consent was not required. The court of appeals ultimately reversed based on this Court's intervening decision in B.I. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in order for the adoption proceedings to go forward, Father's consent was required. View "In re Adoption of A.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her son, C.K., holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to amend Mother's treatment plan or when it determined that Mother was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-609(1)(f). On appeal, Mother argued, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to amend her treatment plan to enumerate specific parenting tasks related to raising a child with autism and to provide for related services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) in refusing to amend Mother's treatment plan on the day of the termination hearing; and (2) in finding that Mother was unlikely to change in a reasonable time. View "In re C.K." on Justia Law

Respondent, C.R. (ward) appealed a circuit court order appointing a guardian over her person, arguing that petitioner New Hampshire Hospital (NHH) failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was incapacitated. She also argued the trial court’s findings of incapacity exceeded the scope of the pleadings and evidence at trial, thereby depriving her of notice and an opportunity to be heard. The ward suffered from schizoaffective disorder, and, in November 2020, was involuntarily admitted to NHH for a two-year period. NHH obtained emergency treatment authorization to provide the ward with psychiatric medication without her consent, and although her condition improved, the medication caused side effects that required a reduction in dosage. The ward declined to take any medication to treat the side effects or any alternative medication that would not cause the side effects. The emergency treatment authorization expired on January 4, 2021. In the two weeks before the February 2021 guardianship proceeding, the ward started exhibiting worsening thoughts that people were trying to target her, and her mood fluctuated more, spurring concerns that the current medication was insufficient. NHH filed the guardianship petition at issue here, alleging that, the guardianship was necessary. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the trial court to have found the ward “is likely to suffer substantial harm due to an inability to provide for [her] personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, health care or safety or an inability to manage . . . her property or financial affairs.” Further, the Court found there was support in the record for the trial court's finding that guardianship was the least restrictive intervention for the ward. The Court found that the guardianship petition informed the ward the trial court could “impose additional orders as a result of the hearing,” but it did not inform her that NHH was asking the court to find her incapable of exercising her rights to marry or divorce, make a will or waive a will’s provisions, hold or obtain a motor vehicle operator’s license, initiate/defend/settle lawsuits, or make decisions concerning educational matters or training. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the ward did not receive the notice contemplated by RSA 464-A:5, I, as to those rights. Therefore, the Court vacated the guardianship order to the extent that it deprived her of those rights. The Court otherwise affirmed the order appointing a guardian over the person of the ward and remanded. View "In re Guardianship of C.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the appropriate standard of proof by which the Department would have to prove that it had made "reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to return safely to his [or her] parent or guardian" under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, 29C is proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence.The parties in this case jointly petitioned for clarification of the standard by which the Department would have to prove that it has made reasonable efforts. The Department argued that the standard of proof should be fair preponderance of the evidence, and the child at issue and its mother argued for a more demanding clear and convincing evidence standard. The Supreme Judicial Court declared that, at a reasonable efforts hearing, the Department's burden is to prove that it has made reasonable efforts by a preponderance of the evidence. View "In re Care & Protection of Rashida" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Father's petition to modify child custody, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.On appeal, Father argued that the district court abused its discretion when it (1) found a material change in circumstances had occurred warranting reconsideration of child custody but then declined to modify the custody arrangement, and (2) excluded the testimony of one of Father's witnesses at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to modify the custody arrangement; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of Father's witnesses at trial. View "Lackey v. Lackey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that remand is not the proper remedy for a successful factual-sufficiency challenge to Tex. Fam. Code 161.006(b)(1)(D) and (E) when termination is otherwise valid on another predicate ground.The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, basing its termination on three predicate grounds and finding that termination was in the child's best interest. The court of appeals affirmed termination under subsection 161.001(b)(1)(O) for failure to comply with the service. Because a predicate ground for termination under (M) is prior termination for endangerment under (D) or (E), however, the court of appeals examined the sufficiency of the evidence and held that the evidence for termination under subsections (D) and (E) was not factually sufficient. The court then remanded the case for a new trial on (D) and (E). The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals erred in remanding the case for a new trial on the factually insufficient predicate grounds. View "In re M.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Child, holding that Father's evidence that he would be paroled in the near future was speculative.Child was born while Father was in prison. When Child was nineteen months old the trial court terminated Father's parental rights, finding that he would remain incarcerated and unable to care for Child for at least two years from the date the petition was filed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the Department of Family and Protective Services failed to negate Father's testimony that he would be paroled "in the near future." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals impermissibly substituted its own judgment for the trial court's judgment and erred by failing to defer to the trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility. View "In re C.L.E.E.G." on Justia Law

Mother and Father married in 2016. In May 2020, Child was born in Utah County, Utah. Following Child’s birth, Mother and Father lived in Utah with Child until July 21, 2020, when Mother and Child relocated to Rigby, Idaho, without Father. Since July 21, 2020, neither Child nor Mother returned to Utah, although Father continued to live there. Father maintains that Mother expressed an intent to return to living in Utah by September 2020 and actively participated in searching for apartments with Father in Utah after she and Child moved to Idaho. Mother disputes that she ever expressed an intention to return to Utah after July 21. In October 2020, Father petitioned for divorce from Mother in Utah; the same day, he filed a motion for temporary orders seeking custody and visitation rights to Child. The Idaho magistrate court’s decision in this case indicated that Mother answered the Utah proceeding on December 10. Then, in February 2021, Mother petitioned for divorce from Father in Jefferson County, Idaho. After Father was served with Mother’s petition on February 12, he retained Idaho counsel to specially appear and contest Idaho jurisdiction. Subsequently, Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s petition for divorce for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, arguing that the Utah court had “home state” jurisdiction. The Utah court held oral argument on Father’s motion for temporary custody orders and Mother’s motion to transfer jurisdiction and issued its written order on April 12. Pertinent to this matter, the Utah court concluded that Utah was not an inconvenient forum and that Mother had stipulated in her answer that jurisdiction was proper in Utah. In May, the Idaho magistrate court heard oral argument on Mother’s motion to accept jurisdiction and Father’s motion to dismiss. Following the hearing, the Idaho magistrate court informally conferred with the Utah court about which state was the “more proper” home state, and concluded that the Utah court was the more appropriate jurisdiction to be the home state under the UCCJEA. The magistrate court entered a judgment on May 28, dismissing the Idaho proceeding. Mother appealed dismissal of her proceedings. But the Idaho Supreme Court determined the Idaho magistrate court did not err in denying Mother's motion to accept jurisdiction and dismissing her petition for divorce. View "Swanson v. Swanson" on Justia Law

S.A.H. was born out-of-wedlock on February 3, 2009. S.A.H.'s mother (Mother) had sole legal custody of S.A.H. until Mother could no longer care for the minor child due to a terminal illness. In Case No. 118,986, Appellant S.A.H.'s maternal first cousin (Cousin) appealed the district court's denial of her motion to vacate an order finalizing the adoption of the minor child to Appellees, S.A.H.'s paternal grandparents (Grandparents). In Case No 119,218, Cousin appealed the dismissal of her petition for general guardianship based on Grandparents' adoption of S.A.H. The issues these cases presented for the Oklahoma Supreme Court's review were: (1) whether the adoption court erred in granting the adoption of the minor child to Grandparents based on the consent of S.A.H.'s father (Father) while Cousin had a claim for general guardianship pending; and (2) whether the guardianship court erred in dismissing Cousin's petition for guardianship due to the adoption. The Supreme Court answered both in the negative: Cousin held no constitutional or statutory right to unwind Grandparents' adoption to which Father consented. Due to Grandparents' adoption of the minor child, a guardianship was not necessary. View "In the Matter of the Adoption of S.A.H." on Justia Law