Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the State of Nebraska and the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are immune from a lawsuit brought by three siblings who were physically and sexually abused in a foster home. The siblings, Joshua M., Sydnie M., and Abigail S., were placed in the foster home by DHHS in 1996. They alleged that DHHS was negligent in recommending and supervising their placement and in failing to remove them from the home when DHHS knew or should have known they were being abused. The court found that the siblings' claims fell within the State Tort Claims Act's exemption for claims arising out of assault or battery, and thus were barred by the State's sovereign immunity. The court also found that DHHS did not breach its duty of care to the siblings. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of DHHS and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the claims against DHHS. The court also affirmed a judgment against the siblings' former foster parent in the amount of $2.9 million. View "Joshua M. v. State" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a custody dispute involving a minor child, J.B., born in March 2021. J.B. was placed in the custody of foster parents, John and Amy Caldwell, by the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) in June 2021. In October 2022, J.B.'s maternal great aunt, Wanda Hines, expressed interest in adopting J.B. Subsequently, the foster parents filed a petition for adoption in March 2023. In response, the relatives filed a motion to intervene and dismiss the adoption proceeding. CPS also filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the foster parents violated their foster contract by pursuing an adoption action. The chancellor granted the relatives' motion to intervene and appointed a guardian ad litem to make a recommendation regarding the child’s best interest.The DeSoto County Chancery Court granted the foster parents durable legal and physical custody of J.B. in a temporary order until the final hearing on the merits of their adoption petition and dismissed CPS without a hearing. The relatives and CPS appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the chancery court's decision, ruling that the chancellor erred by awarding permanent relief without a hearing. The court held that divesting and dismissing CPS from the case is permanent relief, which cannot be done without a hearing, even under the guise of a temporary order. The court also noted that durable legal custody is not an appropriate award after a termination of parental rights. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hines v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

The case involves Katrina Danforth and Ryan Hansen, who share a child, SLD. Hansen filed a petition to terminate Danforth's parental rights to SLD, which Danforth answered pro se, requesting the appointment of a guardian ad litem for SLD and the termination of Hansen's parental rights. The district court ordered the termination of Danforth's parental rights but did not address her request to terminate Hansen's parental rights. Danforth appealed the decision.Previously, an Idaho court had established Hansen's paternity and awarded joint legal and physical custody of SLD to both parents, with Danforth as the primary caregiver. However, after discovering Danforth's involvement in the adult entertainment industry and her inappropriate use of SLD in her work, Hansen filed for custody modification. The court awarded temporary sole legal and physical custody to Hansen. Later, Danforth was sentenced to 10 years in prison for hiring a hitman to kill Hansen. After relocating to Wyoming with SLD, Hansen filed a petition to terminate Danforth's parental rights.In the Supreme Court of Wyoming, Danforth argued that the district court erred by disregarding her counterclaim to terminate Hansen's parental rights. The Supreme Court construed her request as a counterclaim, which remained unresolved. The court found that the district court's order terminating Danforth's parental rights did not satisfy the criteria for an appealable order as it did not resolve all outstanding issues, specifically Danforth's counterclaim. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "In the Matter of SLD" on Justia Law

Joseph and Brenda Field, who were divorced in California, have a minor child. The California court granted joint legal and physical custody of the child to both parents, with Brenda Field having primary physical custody. The court also allowed Brenda and the child to move to North Dakota and established a parenting schedule. The court did not modify the child support order, which required Joseph Field to pay $500 per month in child support and share other specified expenses of the child. The court also transferred venue for all future custody matters to North Dakota.After Brenda and the child moved to North Dakota, the Burleigh County district court registered the California court’s divorce judgment and orders. Later, the Burleigh County district court assumed jurisdiction over the child custody and parenting determinations. Joseph Field filed a motion to modify his parenting time, which Brenda Field opposed. After a hearing, the Burleigh County district court issued an amended judgment modifying parenting time, decision-making, and certain expenses to be paid by the parties.Joseph Field appealed, arguing that the Burleigh County district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the child support order because a California court retained jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. He also argued that the modified parenting plan was not in the child’s best interests.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the decision of the Burleigh County district court. The court found that Joseph Field had not provided sufficient evidence to support his argument that the Burleigh County district court lacked jurisdiction over child support. The court also found that the district court’s decision to modify the parties’ parenting time was not clearly erroneous and was in the best interests of the child. View "Field v. Field" on Justia Law

The case involves a Venezuelan couple, Carlos Cuenca Figueredo and Yauri Rojas, who had a son, C.R. After their separation and divorce, they shared custody of C.R. in Venezuela. However, Rojas took C.R. to the United States without Figueredo's knowledge or permission. Twenty months after Rojas left Venezuela with C.R., Figueredo filed a petition in the Middle District of Florida seeking his son’s return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.The Middle District of Florida found that C.R. was settled in his new environment in the United States. The court considered factors such as C.R.'s stable residence, school attendance, community participation, and Rojas's employment and financial stability. The court also took into account C.R. and his mother's immigration status, noting that Rojas had been granted authorization to remain and work in the United States while her asylum application was pending. Consequently, the court denied Figueredo's petition for C.R.'s return.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that a child's immigration status is one relevant factor in determining whether a child is settled in a new environment. The court found that the district court did not err in finding that C.R. was settled in his new environment and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order his return to Venezuela. View "Alberto Cuenca Figueredo v. Del Carmen Rojas" on Justia Law

A German citizen, Asli Baz, filed a suit under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) to compel Anthony Patterson, a U.S. citizen, to return their six-year-old son, A.P., from Illinois to Germany. The couple had previously lived together in Chicago, but after their relationship ended, they continued to cohabit and share custody of their son. Baz later moved to Germany with A.P., with Patterson's consent. However, Patterson later took A.P. from his school in Germany and brought him back to the U.S., refusing to return him to Germany.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that A.P.’s habitual residence at the time he was retained was in Germany, where he had lived with Baz for over a year, and that the retention in Illinois violated Baz’s rights of custody under German law. It thus granted Baz’s petition and ordered the child’s return. Patterson appealed, challenging both the jurisdiction of the district court and its rulings on the merits of the petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court rejected Patterson's argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to a provision in the Illinois Allocation Judgment, which stated that the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The court also found that the district court did not err in determining that A.P.'s habitual residence was Germany, and that Baz was exercising her rights of custody at the time of the retention. The court emphasized that its decision did not touch on any matters of custody, which should be resolved by the courts of the child's habitual residence. View "Baz v. Patterson" on Justia Law

A fatal motor vehicle accident involving a juvenile driver led to a delinquency petition filed against the driver, who later pleaded nolo contendere to two charges of driving so as to endanger, resulting in death. The parents of the deceased, who were present for the plea, subsequently filed a motion in the Family Court seeking access to the transcript of the proceeding where the juvenile driver was certified and sentenced. The Family Court denied the motion, leading to an appeal by the deceased's parents, who were not parties to the case.The Family Court's denial of the motion was based on the consideration of the "good cause" standard, as stipulated by the statute and precedent. The court found that the parents failed to show how they would not be able to seek restitution for their damages without the transcript. The court also noted that the parents and their attorneys were present during the proceedings for which they requested a transcript. Balancing the interests of the state in protecting the confidentiality of juvenile justice proceedings against the interests of the parents, the court concluded that the state's interests outweighed the parents' interests.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Family Court's order. The Supreme Court noted that the parents failed to meet the standard for production of confidential juvenile records of Family Court proceedings. The court also disagreed with the parents' argument that the transcript might prove helpful in the event of inconsistencies in the juvenile's testimony, describing this argument as speculative. The court concluded that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. View "In re C.R." on Justia Law

Antonio Ortiz, while on supervised release for a drug-trafficking conviction, was accused of repeatedly raping his teenage daughter. The district court found Ortiz guilty of three release violations related to the rapes and revoked his supervised release. Ortiz was sentenced to the statutory maximum of sixty months of imprisonment, to be served consecutively to any state court sentence he might receive.Ortiz appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the evidentiary hearing and that the sentence imposed by the district court was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He claimed his counsel failed to present medical evidence that would have corroborated his testimony that he was physically incapable of raping his daughter due to injuries from previous motorcycle accidents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed with Ortiz's arguments. The court noted that Ortiz had not shown that the purportedly deficient performance of his counsel prejudiced his defense. The court also concluded that the rationale for the sentence was evident from the record and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing it. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

The case involves a non-marital couple, A.M.B. and T.G., who sought to adopt A.M.B.'s biological child, M.M.C. T.G. had been a father figure to M.M.C. for over a decade and had assumed various parental duties. The parental rights of M.M.C.'s biological father had been terminated. Despite a positive Home Study Report recommending the adoption, the Circuit Court for Ashland County denied the adoption petition. The court cited Wisconsin's adoption statutes, which only allow a non-marital partner to adopt their partner's child if they are married to the child's parent. A.M.B. and T.G. appealed, arguing that the statutes violated their equal protection rights.The Circuit Court for Ashland County denied the adoption petition, citing Wisconsin's adoption statutes. The statutes only allow a non-marital partner to adopt their partner's child if they are married to the child's parent. The court referenced a previous case, Georgina G. v. Terry M., which held that an adoption by a third party who is not the spouse of the parent is not permissible. A.M.B. and T.G. appealed the decision, arguing that the statutes violated their equal protection rights.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the adoption statutes did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the statutes did not restrict a fundamental right or regulate a protected class. The court concluded that the state had a legitimate interest in promoting stability for adoptive children through marital families, which provided a rational basis for the legislative limits on eligibility to adopt a child. View "A. M. B. v. Circuit Court for Ashland County" on Justia Law

The case involves Weldon K. McDavid, Jr., who was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted premeditated murder. McDavid, a shooting instructor, had a romantic relationship with Diana Lovejoy, who was going through a contentious divorce. The two hatched a plan to kill Lovejoy's husband, Greg Mulvihill. McDavid shot Mulvihill, causing severe injuries but not killing him. The jury found true allegations that McDavid intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury, and personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim.McDavid appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial court was unaware of its full sentencing discretion under Senate Bill No. 620, which grants trial courts the discretion to strike formerly mandatory enhancements. The Court of Appeal agreed, vacated his sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing. However, the trial court declined to strike the enhancements. McDavid appealed again, and while the appeal was pending, the Court of Appeal held that a trial court has the authority to impose a lesser enhancement not only under section 12022.53 but also under other statutes if the facts supporting the lesser enhancement were alleged and found true by a jury. The Attorney General filed a petition for rehearing, which the Court of Appeal granted. On rehearing, the Court of Appeal reversed course and held that a trial court’s discretion to impose a lesser included, uncharged enhancement is confined to the enhancements in section 12022.53 and does not include enhancements specified in other statutes.The Supreme Court of California reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The court held that when a court has exercised its discretion under subdivision (h) to strike a section 12022.53 enhancement and finds that no other section 12022.53 enhancement is appropriate, the second sentence of subdivision (j) is inapplicable and does not bar the court from imposing a lesser included, uncharged enhancement under a law other than section 12022.53. The court thus has discretion to impose such an enhancement if it is supported by facts that have been alleged and found true. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "People v. McDavid" on Justia Law