Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting a writ of prohibition preventing the order of a court of common pleas judge restoring Appellant's firearms rights from being effective, holding that a writ of prohibition was warranted.Appellant was convicted of a crime in Ohio that prohibited him, under federal law, to possess a firearm unless Appellant had his civil rights restored under Ohio law, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). Appellant filed an application for relief from his federal firearms disability, and Judge Peeler, a Warren County Court of Common Pleas Judge, granted the application. Appellee, Appellant's ex-wife, sought a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent Judge Peeler's order from being effective. The court of appeals granted the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellee established the necessary elements for a writ of prohibition. View "State ex rel. Suwalksi v. Peeler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioners, three boys, prohibiting the circuit court from extending the improvement period of Respondent, their mother, holding that Petitioners showed that they were entitled to the writ.Specifically, Petitioners requested a writ that either directed the circuit court to set their case for a dispositional hearing or that commanded the circuit court to terminate Respondent's parental rights. The Supreme Court granted the writ and remanded this case to the circuit court, holding that Respondent's improvement period was improper from the beginning and that the circuit court committed clear error in extending her improvement period. View "State ex rel. P.G.-1 v. Honorable Wilson" on Justia Law

L.D., father of A.D., appeals a juvenile court order granting a guardianship for A.D. The father argued the court erred by finding A.D. to be a deprived child and failing to address the best interest factors and make an exceptional circumstances finding. A.D.’s aunt and uncle petitioned the juvenile court for a guardianship under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.1, alleging A.D. was a deprived child. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the father had not provided care for or had any contact with A.D. since 2007 or 2008, and did not make any significant attempts to locate A.D. or have A.D. placed in his care. The court found that although the mother testified she attempted to hide A.D. from the father due to “what the father did to her [the mother],” the father has been aware of A.D.’s whereabouts since at least late 2019. In 2019, the father attempted to speak with A.D. on the telephone, but A.D. refused. The court found the father made no further attempt to contact A.D. The court found the father had abandoned A.D. The father claimed the juvenile court did not address the best interest factors under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2. However, the North Dakota Supreme Court was "able to discern how the court’s findings apply to the statutory best interest factors. The court was not required to specifically identify and discuss each best interest factor. The court made sufficient findings to conclude that the guardianship was in the best interest of A.D." Further, the Court found an exceptional circumstances finding was required when both a parent and non-parent are suitable candidates. When the child was deprived by the parents, no finding of exceptional circumstances was required to be made by the court to grant a guardianship. The finding of deprivation eliminates the need for a finding of exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, because A.D. was a deprived child, the juvenile court was not required to make a finding of exceptional circumstances in order to grant the guardianship. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the juvenile court's order. View "Interest of A.D." on Justia Law

Petitioner appeals a circuit court order denying her petition for guardianship of her great-nephew, a minor child, pursuant to RSA chapter 463 (2018 & Supp. 2020). On appeal, petitioner challenged the circuit court’s determination that she could not obtain guardianship because the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) already had legal custody of the child as a result of ongoing abuse and neglect proceedings. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that an award of legal custody pursuant to RSA chapter 169-C did not preclude the appointment of a guardian pursuant to RSA chapter 463. Accordingly, judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Guardianship of B.C." on Justia Law

The parties’ son was born in November 2018. Mother initiated a claim for child support. Testing established father’s paternity. and a stipulated judgment entered. In February 2019, father requested protective orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and sought sole custody, submitting evidence of mother’s repeated online cyberstalking and harassment. Criminal charges were filed against mother. Much of the harassing behavior involves the child. In March 2019, the court awarded father sole custody of the child. Proceedings on the domestic violence restraining order were stayed pending resolution of felony charges against mother. In August 2020, the court denied mother’s request to modify custody and continued her supervised visitation.In connection with requests for modification of the custody and visitation orders, mother requested attorney fees. Following a hearing, the court denied mother’s request for fees, noting that father had not exhibited any conduct to warrant a sanction-based award. Other statutes apply only to married parties and were inapplicable; there has been no finding that father made false allegations of child abuse. Mother is not the prevailing party in an action to enforce an out-of-state custody order. The court of appeal reversed in part. Mother may be entitled to attorney fees under Family Code 7605, which requires a court to “ensure that each party has access to legal representation to preserve each party’s rights,” using the appropriate needs-based criteria. View "C.T. v. K.W." on Justia Law

Mother appealed the juvenile court's denial of her request for a permanent restraining order protecting her from father. While mother's appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction in an order from which mother did not appeal.The Court of Appeal held that mother's failure to appeal the termination of juvenile court jurisdiction does not render mother's restraining order appeal moot. In so holding, the court disagreed with certain cases to the extent they stand for the broad proposition that an appellate court can never grant effective relief in a dependency appeal following the unappealed termination of juvenile court jurisdiction. The court explained that if it were to conclude that the juvenile court's denial of mother's restraining order request constitutes reversible error and directed the issuance of the restraining order, the remittitur would vest jurisdiction in the juvenile court for the limited purpose of correcting that error. Therefore, correcting an erroneous denial of mother's restraining order request would immediately afford mother effective relief.The court also held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother's requested restraining order where the evidence does not compel the conclusion that mother's safety would be in jeopardy without such an order. Furthermore, the juvenile court did not apply an incorrect legal standard in ruling on her request. The court stated that, even assuming there was error, such error would not warrant reversal because it is not reasonably probable that mother would have obtained a more favorable result under the correct standard. View "In re S.G." on Justia Law

Desirae and Forestt have two children, now eight and five years old. Desirae filed a dissolution of marriage petition. She separately requested a domestic violence restraining order against Forestt; that case was dismissed after Desirae failed to serve him. The family court granted the dissolution petition by default and awarded Desirae sole custody of the children. Desirae moved to Utah to join the children, who were living with her parents. Forestt later claimed he was unaware of the divorce proceeding and believed they were sending the children to Utah so they could work on their marriage. Forestt moved to set aside the default, claiming he had not been served properly and sought to prevent Desirae from leaving the state with the children. Desirae obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order from a Utah court and submitted to the family court evidence that she had been subjected to domestic violence for several years. The family court set aside the default and awarded joint custody of the children to Forestt.The court of appeal vacated the order. Family Code section 30441 establishes a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the child’s best interest to award joint or sole legal or physical custody to a parent who a court has found to have committed domestic violence against the other parent within the previous five years. The family court erred in failing to apply the presumption. View "Noble v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that Gina Kirkland, Garret Heater (Garret), and John Carlon were the heirs to the estate of John Clifford Heater (Heater), holding that the district court did not err in determining that Carlon was an heir.During the ongoing litigation between Garret and Kirkland regarding the administration of Mr. Heater's estate, Carlon intervened, claiming that Heater was his biological father and that he, therefore, was an additional heir the estate. After genetic testing proved Carlon to be Heater's son, the district court entered an order naming Kirkland, Garret, and Carlon as the heirs to Heater's estate. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Carlon established a parent-child relationship with Heater in this case; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in affirming the district court's ruling that Heater was Carlon's natural father and the order naming Carlon as one of Heater's heirs. View "In re Estate of Heater" on Justia Law

Grandparents appealed the probate division’s dismissal of their petition for guardianship of S.O. They argued that: (1) the court should have held a hearing and addressed the merits of their petition; (2) the Department for Children and Families (DCF) violated their due process rights by moving to dismiss the petition; and (3) if there had been a merits hearing, they would have shown that they were suitable guardians and that a nonconsensual custodial guardianship was in S.O.’s best interests. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Guardianship of S.O." on Justia Law

When former NFL quarterback Tarvaris Jackson passed away, he left behind a young daughter named Jaya, to whom he owed child support under the terms of a Minnesota court order. Jaya's mother and legal representative, Jessa Roginski, filed suit in Alabama court to domesticate the Minnesota support order. In response to a motion filed by Jackson's estate, the circuit court entered an order to strike Roginski's filings, from which she appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. Because the Court of Civil Appeals had exclusive appellate jurisdiction of appeals in domestic-relations cases, the Supreme Court transferred this appeal to that court. View "Roginski v. Estate of Tarvaris Jackson" on Justia Law