Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A minor child, J.B., was placed in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) in May 2021 and subsequently placed with foster parents, John and Amy Caldwell, in June 2021. The initial permanency plan was reunification with a parent or placement with a relative. In October 2022, J.B.’s maternal great aunt, Wanda Hines, learned of the proceedings and sought placement of J.B. with her and her husband, James Hines, in Georgia. After the youth court terminated the parental rights of J.B.’s biological parents in December 2022, both the foster parents and the relatives sought to adopt J.B.The DeSoto County Chancery Court first granted the foster parents’ petition for adoption, but the relatives intervened and challenged the adoption, arguing that CPS policy and the foster contract required exhaustion of family placement options before adoption by non-relatives. CPS also sought dismissal or a stay, asserting ongoing efforts for relative placement. The chancellor initially issued a temporary order granting the foster parents custody and the relatives visitation, but the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed this order on interlocutory appeal for lack of a hearing and remanded for a full hearing.On remand, the chancery court held a hearing and found that the best interest of the child was the controlling factor, not a preference for relatives. The court determined that J.B. had lived with the Caldwells for most of her life, was thriving in their care, and that placement with them would avoid unnecessary trauma. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancery court’s decision, holding that the best interest of the child prevails over CPS policy or contractual arguments, and that substantial credible evidence supported the adoption by the foster parents. The court also rejected the relatives’ judicial estoppel argument. View "In the Matter of the Petition for the Adoption of the Minor Child v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

A married couple with two young children experienced a breakdown in their relationship, leading to separation in 2020. The husband, who lived near his supportive family, filed for divorce and sought primary custody of the children, citing concerns about the wife’s mental health, including her history of depression and suicide attempts. The wife, who lacked a family support network but maintained employment and support from friends, counterclaimed for divorce and also sought custody, alleging the husband’s controlling behavior and alcohol use. Both parties presented conflicting testimony regarding their roles as caregivers and the circumstances leading to their separation.The Choctaw County Chancery Court initially entered a temporary custody order, alternating physical custody every fifteen days. The parties later agreed to divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, leaving custody and support to the chancellor. After a trial, the chancellor applied the Albright factors and found that the mental health and moral fitness factors slightly favored the husband, awarding him primary physical custody while granting joint legal custody. The wife moved for a new trial and for the chancellor’s recusal, arguing errors in the Albright analysis and alleging judicial bias, but both motions were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the chancellor’s findings under a deferential standard, asking whether they were supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. The court held that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in weighing the mental health and moral fitness factors, nor was there reversible error in the lack of specific findings regarding detrimental impact. The court also found no merit in the claims of judicial bias or error in denying a new trial. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Court. View "Edwards v. Edwards" on Justia Law

A couple who had lived together in Montana since the mid-1990s had their relationship recognized as a common law marriage. After separating in 2013, the wife petitioned for divorce in 2014. During the dissolution proceedings, both parties exchanged financial information but did not submit final declarations of disclosure as required by Montana law. Following a bench trial, the District Court issued a Final Decree in December 2018, dissolving the marriage, distributing the marital estate, and ordering the husband to pay spousal and child support, as well as the mortgage on the marital home awarded to the wife. Neither party objected at the time to the lack of final disclosure statements.Subsequent litigation focused on the husband’s financial obligations under the Final Decree. The husband sought to modify or suspend his support obligations, leading to further discovery disputes and contempt proceedings when he failed to make required payments. The District Court repeatedly enforced the Final Decree, denied the husband’s motions to modify, and awarded attorney fees to the wife. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed these orders in a prior appeal. In December 2023, the husband, for the first time, moved to set aside the Final Decree on the basis that final disclosure statements had not been exchanged. The District Court denied this motion as untimely and because the statutory basis for relief did not apply.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s denial of the husband’s motion to set aside the Final Decree and his request for a new trial. The Court held that Montana law only authorizes setting aside a judgment if a party committed perjury in a final disclosure statement, which was not possible here since no such statements were exchanged. The Court also awarded the wife her attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal, remanding to the District Court to determine the reasonable amount. View "Marriage of: Kelly and Camp" on Justia Law

Two children, R.D. and S.D., were the subject of a dependency and neglect case initiated in Tennessee in 2019 due to their mother’s substance abuse and their father’s incarceration for assaulting the mother. The Tennessee court placed the children with their maternal grandmother, then later with their aunt and uncle, T.V. and R.V., in West Virginia after the grandmother’s death. In February 2022, the Tennessee court granted T.V. and R.V. full legal and physical custody but did not terminate the parents’ rights. T.V. and R.V. subsequently petitioned for adoption in West Virginia, mistakenly asserting that parental rights had been terminated.The Circuit Court of McDowell County, West Virginia, granted the adoption petitions in June 2022, believing the Tennessee court had terminated parental rights. The Tennessee court later clarified that it had not done so and transferred jurisdiction to the West Virginia court in April 2023. The circuit court consolidated all related proceedings, and various motions followed, including amended adoption petitions and requests to terminate parental rights. In June 2024, the circuit court upheld the prior adoption orders and, alternatively, modified the Tennessee disposition to terminate the father’s parental rights.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to make custody determinations or terminate parental rights in June 2022, rendering those adoption orders void. However, the court affirmed the circuit court’s later modification of disposition and termination of parental rights after jurisdiction was properly transferred from Tennessee. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "In re R.D. and S.D." on Justia Law

A mother was the subject of an abuse and neglect petition filed by the Department of Human Services in February 2020, alleging that her long-standing substance abuse and incidents of domestic violence prevented her from properly parenting her child, R.B. At adjudication, she stipulated to her substance abuse issues, and the Circuit Court of Kanawha County found her to be an abusing and neglecting parent. After multiple unsuccessful improvement periods, the court terminated her custodial rights in April 2021, placing R.B. in a legal guardianship. The mother did not appeal this order.In early 2023, R.B.’s legal guardian became gravely ill and died. The mother moved to modify the dispositional order, seeking reinstatement of her rights, claiming she had completed rehabilitation and maintained sobriety. The Department also moved for modification, seeking custody of R.B. After investigation, the court found the mother had relapsed and failed to comply with drug testing and other requirements. R.B. was placed with relatives, and the mother continued to struggle with substance abuse, testing positive for methamphetamine in February 2024. The Department then moved to terminate her parental rights.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case, applying an abuse of discretion standard to the circuit court’s order and a clearly erroneous standard to its factual findings. The court held that the death of the guardian constituted a material change in circumstances and that termination of parental rights was in R.B.’s best interests, given the mother’s ongoing substance abuse and inability to provide a stable environment. The court affirmed the circuit court’s order modifying disposition and terminating the mother’s parental rights. View "In re R.B." on Justia Law

A two-year-old child, M.B., was placed with foster parents who are members of an Old Order Amish community shortly after his birth. The foster parents had previously adopted M.B.’s three biological sisters, who also reside in their home. Concerns were raised by M.B.’s guardian ad litem regarding the suitability of this placement, primarily because the Amish foster parents would limit M.B.’s formal education to eighth grade, consistent with their religious beliefs. Additional concerns included the lack of regular pediatric care, limited vaccination, restricted exposure to technology, and the potential for racial non-acceptance within the Amish community, as M.B. is biracial.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County reviewed a motion by the guardian ad litem to remove M.B. from the foster home. The court considered evidence and testimony, including the foster father’s statements about education, medical care, and community acceptance. The court also reviewed a special commissioner’s report, which acknowledged the loving and stable environment provided by the foster parents but noted potential limitations related to education, healthcare, and cultural exposure. Ultimately, the circuit court denied the motion to remove M.B., finding that the foster home was stable, loving, and in the child’s best interests, and that the court could not discriminate against the family based on religion or lifestyle.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the Foster Child Bill of Rights does not mandate removal from a placement solely because one or more statutory rights may be limited, but instead requires a best-interest-of-the-child analysis considering all relevant factors. The court found that the circuit court’s findings were supported by the record and that M.B.’s placement with the Amish foster parents did not violate his statutory or constitutional rights. View "In re M.B." on Justia Law

A married couple owned a waterfront property in Canada, which was destroyed by fire during their divorce proceedings. The wife, who was living at the Canadian property, disclosed during discovery that there was a single insurance policy with a $2 million Canadian Dollar (CAD) limit covering the property. The parties entered into a stipulation and agreement, incorporated into the divorce decree, which awarded the wife the Canadian property and the related insurance proceeds. Several months later, the husband learned that the wife was actually receiving $4 million CAD in insurance proceeds, not the $2 million CAD previously disclosed. He alleged that the wife had concealed an additional insurance policy and sought relief from the divorce judgment on grounds of fraud.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, reviewed the husband’s motion for relief under SDCL 15-6-60(b)(3). After a hearing based on affidavits and documentary evidence, the court found that the wife had committed fraud by intentionally concealing the additional insurance policy. The court ordered the wife to produce all insurance policies in effect at the time of the fire and directed that any insurance proceeds exceeding $2 million CAD be split equally between the parties, in accordance with their agreement and SDCL 25-4-77. The court also awarded attorney fees to the husband and issued a stay allowing the wife to use the insurance proceeds to rebuild the property, with any excess to be held in trust.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota held that the circuit court’s finding of fraud was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the grant of Rule 60(b) relief. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate division of assets under the current circumstances, given the stay and use of insurance proceeds for reconstruction. The Supreme Court also awarded appellate attorney fees to the husband. View "Trumble v. Trumble" on Justia Law

The case concerns two children who were removed from their parents’ care in 2018 due to concerns including unmet medical and educational needs, substance exposure, and a history of domestic violence and substance abuse by the parents. The children were placed with their grandparents, who were later appointed as guardians. The parents had supervised visitation, which increased to unsupervised visits after the father’s release from incarceration and the mother’s progress toward sobriety. In 2022, the parents sought to terminate the guardianship, while the grandparents requested recognition as third-party parents. A Guardian ad Litem (GAL) recommended the children remain with the grandparents and that visitation with the parents remain supervised.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, previously granted the grandparents a third-party parental interest and adopted a parenting plan requiring the parents to remain sober and address safety concerns to obtain unsupervised visitation. In early 2025, the grandparents moved to suspend visitation due to new safety concerns and the parents’ failure to continue counseling. The court suspended visitation, held a hearing, and heard testimony from the children’s therapists, who described the children’s anxiety and PTSD symptoms related to time spent with the parents. The court found a change in circumstances and amended the parenting plan to maintain the children’s primary residence with the grandparents and limit the parents to supervised visitation.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the parents’ appeal, which raised procedural and substantive challenges to the district court’s orders. The Supreme Court held that prior decisions regarding the third-party parental interest and related issues were binding under the law of the case doctrine. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s amendment of the parenting plan, concluding that a change in circumstances existed and that the amendment served the children’s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Parenting of L.M.A.R. & N.R.R." on Justia Law

A mother was involved in two separate abuse and neglect proceedings concerning her three children. In the first case, both she and the children’s father were alleged to have engaged in domestic violence in the children’s presence, and the father was also accused of abusing one child. After participating in services, the mother regained custody, but the father’s parental rights were terminated, and a no-contact order was issued against him. In the second case, the Department of Human Services alleged that the mother violated the no-contact order by allowing the father back into the home, continued to engage in domestic violence with him, and failed to protect the children. The mother claimed that the father forced his way into her home and that she was afraid to call law enforcement due to his threats.The Circuit Court of Nicholas County found probable cause to remove the children and, after a contested adjudicatory hearing, determined that the mother was an abusive and neglectful parent. The court did not make findings regarding the mother’s assertion that she was a “battered parent” under West Virginia law, despite her testimony and request for such a determination. The court subsequently terminated her parental rights, finding no reasonable likelihood that she could correct the conditions of abuse and neglect and that termination was in the children’s best interests.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that when a parent asserts “battered parent” status before the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court must allow evidence on that issue and make specific findings as required by statute. Because the circuit court failed to do so, both the adjudicatory and dispositional orders were vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "In re J.F.-1, C.F., and L.H." on Justia Law

The case concerns a mother whose three children were removed from her care after the West Virginia Department of Human Services filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect. The Department asserted that both parents abused substances, failed to provide adequate food, clothing, supervision, and housing, and exposed the children to unsanitary and unsafe living conditions. The eldest child, though living primarily with her grandmother, was still exposed to the parents’ home environment. Law enforcement and expert witnesses described the home as cluttered, with animal feces present, and testified to the children’s significant developmental, nutritional, and medical issues, which were attributed to environmental neglect.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County held a series of hearings, during which evidence was presented by both the Department and the mother. The court found that the children were in imminent danger and ratified their removal. After multiple adjudicatory hearings, the court found the children to be abused and neglected, though it initially failed to enter a written order with specific factual findings. At the dispositional hearing, the court denied the mother’s request for a post-adjudicatory improvement period, citing her continued drug use, lack of acknowledgment of the children’s conditions, and failure to take responsibility. The court then terminated her parental rights, finding no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be corrected in the near future.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia addressed whether the absence of specific factual findings at adjudication deprived the lower court of subject matter jurisdiction to proceed to disposition. The court held that while specific findings are a statutory prerequisite for moving to disposition, they are not a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the denial of an improvement period and the termination of parental rights, concluding that the lower court did not err under the facts presented. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed. View "In re R.M., B.M., and H.M." on Justia Law