Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his son, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and further concluding that it was in the child's best interests that Father's rights be terminated. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court erred by failing to make required findings pursuant to section 7B-1110(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because there was no conflict in the evidence, the trial court was not required to make findings of fact on the issue of whether the child's maternal grandmother was an appropriate relative placement; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re K.A.M.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to L.M.M., holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7).Petitioners sought to terminate Father's parental rights, alleging the grounds of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based upon neglect and willful abandonment and 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 properly terminated Father's parental rights. View "In re L.M.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(8) and thereafter ceasing reunification with Mother, holding that there was no error.The trial court concluded that Mother had aided, abetted, or conspired to commit voluntary manslaughter of another child and, as such, grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(8). The court further concluded that terminating Respondent's parental rights was in the child's best interests and ordered that reunification efforts with Mother cease. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly terminated Mother's parental rights and properly ceased reunification efforts. View "In re C.B.C.B." on Justia Law

In these appeals concerning two permutations of the issue of whether non-compliance with the signature acknowledgement requirements of Domestic Relations Law (DRL) 236(B)(3) renders a nuptial agreement irrevocably unenforceable the Court of Appeals that the signature must be acknowledged contemporaneously within a reasonable time of signing.In one case on appeal, the wife signed and acknowledged the nuptial agreement with her husband the month after they married. The husband, however, delayed nearly seven years before acknowledging his signature and did so only shortly before he commenced a divorce action. In the other case, the acknowledgments of the parties were made contemporaneously with the signing of the nuptial agreement, but the certificates of acknowledgment were defective. The Supreme Court held (1) in the first case, the husband's acknowledgement was ineffective, and the nuptial agreement was unenforceable; and (2) in the second case, the defect in the certificate was overcome with extrinsic evidence of the official's personal knowledge or proof of identity of the signer. View "Anderson v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the family court's order denying Father's motion to set aside default and his motion to intervene, holding that the family court should have analyzed Father's motion to intervene under Hawai'i Family Court Rules (HFCR) 24.In this proceeding brought under the Hawai'i Child Protective Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 587A, both Father's default and default judgment were entered while the identity of the child's natural father was unknown. On certiorari, Father argued that he was not required to set aside the default and default judgment before filing his motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24. The Supreme Court agreed on that issue and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) Father was not required to set aside the default and default judgment before proceeding with his motion to intervene; and (2) Father's remaining arguments were without merit. View "In re AA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dividing marital property between Wife and Husband upon granting Husband a divorce, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dividing the marital property as it did.On appeal, Wife argued that the district court abused its discretion by arbitrarily awarding her an equalization payment of $200,000 and requested that the Court either modify the judgment to $334,789 or remand for further proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the property in a division it considered fair and equitable and after applying the factors set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-114. View "Innes v. Innes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgments entered by the district court establishing Dawn and James Ostrander as de facto parents of two biological children of Mark Martin and Marylou MacMahan, allocating parental rights and responsibilities and child support among the parties, and amending a divorce judgment between Martin and MacMahan, holding that the judgment amending the divorce judgment was in error.In an agreed-upon divorce judgment, the family court awarded shared parental rights of the twins of MacMahan and Martin to both parties. Later, the Ostranders, with whom the children were living, filed a complaint seeking a determination of de facto parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support. The court concluded that the Ostranders were the de facto parents of the children, decided that parental rights would be shared among the Ostranders, Martin, and MacMahan, and amended some of the divorce judgment's provisions. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment amending the divorce judgment and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in establishing de facto parentage, parental rights and responsibilities, and child support; and (2) the judgment amending the divorce judgment was inconsistent with the judgment establishing parental rights and responsibilities. View "Martin v. MacMahan" on Justia Law

Erin McAlister appealed trial court orders awarding Wendi Clifton, McAlister’s former domestic partner, visitation rights to McAlister’s adopted daughter, Catherine, pursuant to the equitable caregiver statute, OCGA 19-7-3.1.1 McAlister contended the trial court erred in declaring the statute “constitutional, both facially and as applied to [Clifton],” as well as finding that Clifton had standing to seek visitation rights as Catherine’s equitable caregiver. The Georgia Supreme Court found that Catherine having turned 18 years old prior to the docketing of this appeal, and the parties agreed that this fact rendered moot McAlister’s challenge to the award of visitation rights. The Court therefore concluded this case was moot, and therefore vacated the trial court’s orders and remanded the case to the trial court with direction that the case be dismissed. View "McAlister v. Clifton" on Justia Law

The children, born in 2009 and 2012, were placed in the dependency system. They were placed in the care of their paternal grandmother, who formally adopted both children but had significant problems caring for them. Grandmother contacted Adoption Connection and asked that the children be re-placed for adoption, indicating that the children must remain part of the family and that the openness of the adoptions was of primary importance. The new adoptive parents signed an open adoption contract. Difficulties arose after the adoption was finalized and Grandmother learned that the agreement had not been provided to the adoption court and was not considered or made part of the original adoption order. Adoption Connection filed a request to “Amend Judgment of Adoption to Include Post Adoption Contact Agreement.”The trial court determined that it had no jurisdiction because the court which had originally granted the adoptions had not made the necessary judicial determinations as to whether the post-adoption contact agreement was executed voluntarily and in the best interests of the children. The court of appeal reversed. The trial court could have used its equitable powers to amend the judgments to include the parties’ agreement in the interests of fairness and justice. The trial court also erroneously held that evidence of fraud or an intentional or deliberate misrepresentation was necessary for the grandparents to show the adoptive parents were barred from opposing the amendment under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. View "Adoption of S.S." on Justia Law

Keith Andrews intervened in the divorce proceedings of Karen and Jarred Kinnett, asserting he was the biological father of Ms. Kinnett’s youngest child. His avowal action was filed eighteen months after the child’s birth. The Louisiana Supreme Court found the avowal action untimely and perempted under Louisiana Civil Code article 198 . The case was remanded for the court of appeal to address Andrews’ remaining constitutional challenge. View "Kinnett v. Kinnett" on Justia Law