Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the dispositional orders of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his four children, holding that the circuit court erroneously failed to follow the process established by the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and related statutes.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect after Petitioner was seen living out of a car with two of his children and their mother. In an amended petition, DHHR added Father's two other children, despite the fact that the children had not seen Father for years and lived with a different mother. The circuit court ultimately terminated Father's parental rights to all four children - two on the basis of abandonment and two because of inadequate housing. The Supreme Court vacated the dispositional orders, holding that remand was required for further proceedings because the circuit court clearly erred by failing to follow the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and related statutes. View "In re C.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the judgment of the district court in this marriage dissolution action, holding that the district court did not err in granting Wife's motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 59, and this Court declines to impose sanctions under Wyo. R. App. P. 10.05.After a bench trial the district court entered a decree of divorce dividing the martial assets and ordering Wife to make a lump sum equalization payment to Husband subject to statutory interest. Wife moved to alter or amend the judgment requesting a payment plan without interest for the equalization payment. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed, holding that Husband's brief on appeal was deficient in several respects and lacked cogent argument. View "McInerney v. Kramer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying the petition brought by Petitioners, Mother and Stepfather, to allow Stepfather to adopt R.L., a minor child, holding that W. Va. Code 48-22-306(a) does not preclude a finding of abandonment in a case where the birth parent has the ability to ascertain the child's whereabouts during the relevant time frame but willfully fails to do so.Because Respondent Father contested R.L.'s adoption the circuit court was require to analyze whether Father abandoned the child under section 48-22-306. The circuit court denied the adoption petition, concluding that Father did not abandon R.L. because (1) section 48-22-306(a)(2) permits a finding of abandonment only where the parent "fails to visit or otherwise communicate with the child when [he] knows where the child resides"; and (2) Father did not know where R.L. resided at the time the adoption petition was filed or in the preceding six months. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that it was precluding from finding abandonment because Father did not know where R.L. resided without any consideration as to whether Father could have ascertained that information. View "In re Adoption of R.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court trial justice affirming the decision and order entered by the General Magistrate of the family court granting Plaintiff's motion to relocate permanently to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with the parties' minor child, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff filed this action and an ex parte motion seeking temporary custody and physical possession of the parties' child. The court granted the motion, after which Plaintiff filed a verified emergency motion to relocate to Massachusetts. The family court granted the emergency motion to relocate. The general magistrate granted the motion to relocate, and the family court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court did not erroneously affirm the general magistrate's decision and order concluding that allowing Plaintiff to relocate permanently to Massachusetts was in the child's best interests. View "Dawson v. Ojeda" on Justia Law

The parents in this case were brought to the attention of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare ("Department") regarding reports of neglect and physical abuse to their five children. The child protection case began in February 2023 as a protective supervision case. Nearly three months later, the magistrate court ordered that the children be removed from the home and placed in the legal custody of the Department. John Doe (Father) appealed the magistrate court’s order removing his five children from the parents’ custody and temporarily placing the children in the legal custody of the Department. Father argued the magistrate court’s order failed to contain detailed written findings as required by Idaho law, that the order was not supported by substantial and competent evidence, and that the magistrate court’s actions violated Father’s fundamental rights to the care and custody of his children. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court. View "IDHW v. John Doe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellants' appeal of the dismissal of their petition for permanent third-party custody of their great niece, K.J., holding that the court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to timely serve the guardian ad litem with a notice of appeal under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.01, subdivision 1.After Appellants filed their petition the district court appointed a guardian ad litem. A referee approved a stipulation of shared joint legal and physical custody of K.J. by Respondent, K.J.'s mother, and K.J.'s father. After a hearing, the court dismissed Appellants' petition for third-party custody. The court subsequently discharged the guardian ad litem, after which Appellants appealed. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to timely serve the guardian ad litem under Rule 103.01, subdivision 1. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the guardian ad litem was no longer a party to the action once she was discharged by the district court; and (2) Rule 103.01, subdivision 1 does not require service of a notice of appeal on a former party whose dismissal is not itself the subject of the appeal. View "Blakey v. Jones" on Justia Law

This case involved the complicated relationship between a mother, Teri A., and her son, Zachary H. During a tense period in their relationship, Zachary H. moved out of Teri A.’s home and informed her that he did not want to have further contact. Over Zachary H.’s repeated objections, Teri A. continued to reach out to him by mail, text message, e-mail, and by showing up to his home unannounced. Zachary H. claimed that after he moved out, Teri A. nearly ran him over with her car as he walked along the sidewalk near his residence. Following this incident, Teri A. sent Zachary H. a series of e-mails that caused him significant emotional distress. Immediately after receiving Teri A.’s e-mail referencing firearms, Zachary H. sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). During the DVRO hearing, the trial court found Zachary H.’s testimony to be credible, and evidence established Zachary H. was in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm and issued a DVRO for a period of one year, including a related firearms prohibition. Teri A. appealed, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the DVRO because it was not supported by substantial evidence and because the DVRO resulted from evidentiary errors by the trial court. She also contended the firearms prohibition violated her constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Finding no abuse of discretion, and that the firearms restriction issued in conjunction with the DVRO was constitutional. View "Zachary H. v. Teri A." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the New Mexico Supreme Court's review centered on whether a hearing officer improperly denied a petition for an order of protection under the Family Violence Protection Act (FVPA) by requiring the petitioner to show she was in imminent danger of harm by the respondent, whom she alleged sexually assaulted her as a child. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ memorandum opinion reversing the district court. The Court held that the plain language of the FVPA did not require petitioners to provide a showing of imminent danger or injury in seeking an order of protection. View "Nguyen v. Bui" on Justia Law

Daniel Barefoot, as a personal representative and legatee of the estate of Danny Bryant Barefoot, appealed a probate court order that determined the estate of Donna Viola Barefoot was entitled to a share of Danny's estate on the basis that Donna was an omitted spouse under § 43-8-90, Ala. Code 1975. Danny executed a will in August 2012, while married to Merita Hall Barefoot. In the will, other than a specific bequest to his and Merita's son, Daniel, Danny devised his residuary estate to Merita. Danny specified that, if Merita predeceased him, his estate would be shared jointly in equal shares by Daniel and Marcie Jenkins, whom he identified in the will as his stepdaughter. Danny also named Daniel and Marcie as corepresentatives of his estate. Merita died on September 6, 2014. On January 21, 2018, Danny married Donna. Danny and Donna did not execute a prenuptial agreement, and Danny did not execute a new will or a codicil to his previous will to include any testamentary dispositions to Donna. Danny died on September 5, 2021. Twelve days later, on September 17, 2021, Donna died. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded the appeal was from a nonfinal order and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Barefoot v. Cole" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to Daughter, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Following a hearing, the district court held that it was in Daughter's best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother failed to show that the Department's failure to insist on a written response prejudiced Mother's substantial rights; (2) a district court's failure to comply with statutory requirements for adjudication as youth in need of care has no effect on the court's jurisdiction to hear and determine a petition of parental rights, and the district court in this case did not commit legal error by proceeding on the termination petition; (3) Mother's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel failed; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that termination, as opposed to guardianship, was appropriate. View "In re Z.N-M." on Justia Law