Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that enforcement of the prenuptial agreement between the parties was not unconscionable, with one exception, holding that the trial court did not err in ruling that the occurrence of the unforeseen events did not render the enforcement of the entire agreement unconscionable at the time of the dissolution.In 2010, shortly before the parties' marriage they executed a prenuptial agreement. In 2016, Plaintiff brought this action seeking dissolution of the marriage and enforcement of the prenuptial agreement. Defendant filed a cross-claim, asserting that the agreement was unenforceable because it was unconscionable at the time of the dissolution under Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-36g(a)(2). The trial court dissolved the marriage and enforced the terms of the prenuptial agreement with the exception of an attorney's fees provision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly allowed the parties the benefit of their agreed-upon, pre-marriage bargain. View "Grabe v. Hokin" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Mississippi Supreme Court's review centered on the temporary termination of a father’s child-support obligation. Because the Court found that the Court of Appeals did not apply the abuse-of-discretion standard of review applicable to the chancery court’s decision regarding the child-support termination, it reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court reinstated and affirmed the chancer court's judgment terminating the father’s child-support obligation to one child. However, because the chancellor did not make a new finding on the amount of child support applicable to one child, the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Davis v. Henderson" on Justia Law

After husband John Thompson petitioned for separation from Wife Olivia Thompson in California, wife petitioned for dissolution of marriage in Massachusetts. Husband then amended his California petition to seek dissolution. Wife, in turn, filed a request for order to quash and abate the California proceedings, arguing her dissolution proceeding in Massachusetts was first and was a better suited forum. The trial court ordered the California case abated and stayed, finding wife’s dissolution petition was first in time, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over wife, and “equitable factors” weighed in favor of Massachusetts. On appeal, husband contended his dissolution petition was first in time because it related back to his petition for separation, and regardless, the trial court abused its discretion in abating the action based on the erroneous conclusion it lacked personal jurisdiction over wife. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not have in personam jurisdiction over wife at the time husband filed his original petition for separation or his amended petition seeking marital dissolution. "Because the first in time rule applies only when the court has acquired both in rem and in personam jurisdiction, husband’s first in time theory fails." View "Marriage of Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the divorce judgment entered by the district court that awarded shared parental rights and responsibilities concerning the parties' minor children, holding that the court impermissibly based its determination on hearsay evidence.At issue before the Supreme Court was the admission of testimonial evidence regarding Father's substantiation by the Department of Health and Human Services for sexual abuse of a child. On appeal, Father argued that the evidence regarding his substantiations was inadmissible hearsay and that the evidence prejudiced him. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below, holding (1) the evidence regarding Father's substantiation was inadmissible hearsay; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "Needham v. Needham" on Justia Law

The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) appealed a circuit court order that dismissed a neglect petition brought against the respondent. DCYF argued the circuit court erred by: (1) relying upon criminal definitions of sexual assault and grooming; and (2) disregarding conduct that the child did not personally observe. Further, DCYF argued the evidence compelled a finding of neglect by the circuit court. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded the circuit court committed legal error by basing its neglect determination, in part, upon whether the respondent’s conduct was criminal. Accordingly, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded. In addition, because the issue was likely to arise on remand, the Court clarified that RSA chapter 169-C did not require that a child personally observe conduct in order for a court to consider that conduct when determining neglect. View "In re C.C." on Justia Law

Karley Anderson appealed an order denying her motion to modify residential responsibility, and appealed a contempt order awarding attorney’s fees to Seth Pedie. Anderson argued the district court erred by concluding she failed to establish a prima facie case for modification entitling her to an evidentiary hearing, and awarding attorney’s fees in excess of the amount requested. Pedie requested sanctions against Anderson for violating the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Anderson’s motion to modify residential responsibility and the contempt order awarding attorney’s fees, and denied sanctions on appeal. View "Anderson v. Pedie, et al." on Justia Law

Michael Pomarleau appealed a divorce judgment and amended divorce judgment. On appeal, Michael challenged the calculation of Tanya Pomarleau’s income for child support obligations, the allocation of child tax credits, allowing an off-set to Tanya's equity payment, and the valuation of various items of property. Tanya cross-appealed, arguing the district court erred in failing to make an adjustment to the net marital estate for expenses incurred by the parties during their separation and in calculating the royalty payments received by the parties during the separation. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, concluding the district court did not err in distribution, accounting, and valuation of the net marital estate, or in its allocation of the child tax credits. The Court reversed in part, concluding Michael's income was overstated and Tanya's income was understated, and reversed and remanded for recalculation of the parties’ income for child support purposes. View "Pomarleau v. Pomarleau, et al." on Justia Law

The children, born in 2016 and 2017, were taken into protective custody in July 2020 after their younger sibling, R., suffered non-accidental fatal head injuries while in the care of their father. Continuances, due in part to the pandemic, significantly delayed the jurisdiction and disposition hearings, which took place in February and May 2021. The juvenile court found there was a substantial risk of detriment to the children if returned to Mother’s care, ordered their removal from her physical custody, and ordered family reunification services for her. The court granted the Department of Family and Children’s Services' unopposed request to combine the six-month and 12-month review hearings. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court held the 18-month review hearing and returned the children to Mother on a plan of family maintenance.The court of appeal affirmed. in light of the strict statutory limits set out in the dependency scheme, Mother failed to establish error with respect to combining the six-month and 12-month hearings. Mother’s claim that she faces the potential loss of a full and fair opportunity to reunify in the event the children are removed again is not ripe for review. Mother has not shown that her trial counsel’s failure to object to the setting of the combined review hearing was deficient or prejudicial. View "In re M.F." on Justia Law

Jaffal, born in Jordan, sought a declaration that he is entitled to derivative U.S. citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a), which provides that “a child born outside the United States automatically acquires United States citizenship if, while the child is under the age of eighteen, the parent with legal custody of the child is naturalized while that child’s parents are legally separated.” Jaffal’s father was naturalized when Jaffal was 17 years old. Jaffal presented evidence that he was in the sole legal custody of his father when his father was naturalized and his parents were separated. The district court declined to accept Jaffal’s evidence of his parents’ divorce because there was no evidence that Jaffal’s mother participated in the Jordanian divorce.The Third Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to issue a judgment declaring Jaffal to be a national of the United States. If a §section1432(a) petitioner establishes that a valid, legal separation was effectuated under the relevant state or foreign nation’s law, he has met the burden of establishing a legal separation. Jordanian courts had the authority to alter Jaffal’s parents’ marriage. The Jordanian divorce established Jaffal’s parents’ legal separation as a matter of law. View "Jaffal v. Director Newark New Jersey Field Office Immigration & Customs Enforcement" on Justia Law

In November 2018, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services filed a petition (Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001) relative to three-year-old A.L. A.L. was living with her father; she was placed into protective custody after her father left A.L. with a daycare provider for several days without making arrangements for her care. Father was in custody. The Department could not locate A.L.’s mother. In March 2019, the juvenile court declared A.L. a dependent child, removed her from her father’s care, and ordered family reunification services. Father received services for 16 months. In July 2020, the court terminated those services and scheduled a selection and implementation hearing (section 366.26). Father then filed a section 388 petition. seeking the return of A.L. to his care. In January 2021, after a combined hearing on the 388 petition and selection and implementation, the court found A.L. adoptable and terminated the father’s parental rights.The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the father’s claim of the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption and did not apply the correct legal standard by basing its determination that the exception did not apply on the finding that father did not occupy a strong parental role in A.L’s life. View "In re A.L." on Justia Law