Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting Mother primary physical custody of the parties' two children in this case, holding that the circuit court's child custody determination was within the range of permissible choices and was supported by competent evidence.Mother and Father were never married and shared two children together. Father eventually petitioned for "Interim and Primary Custody, Child Support, and Paternity" determinations. Following a trial, the circuit court concluded that it would be in the children's best interests to grant Mother primary custody with Father having parenting time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in declaring the S.D. Codified Laws 25-4-45.5 presumption to have been rebutted; and (2) did not give too much weight to its primary caretaker determination. View "Harwood v. Chamley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying Father's child support, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court abused its discretion when it calculated Father's net monthly income without first obtaining sufficient financial information and by calculating her net monthly income contrary to the evidence on the record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) obtained sufficient financial information to calculate Father's net monthly income; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in calculating Mother's net monthly income. View "Corbitt v. Davidson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed judgment of the court of appeals denying Mother's complaint for a writ of prohibition, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief on her argument that the juvenile division lacked jurisdiction to award custody of Child to Grandfather.A Nevada court issued a shared parenting order establishing Mother's and Father's rights regarding custody of and visitation of Child. The Nevada court subsequently adopted a modified shared-parenting order. Grandfather later filed a complaint seeking legal custody of Child. The juvenile court and gave Grandfather legal custody of Child. Mother filed a complaint for prohibition, alleging that the juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to modify the Nevada court's custody order. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court holding that Mother failed in her burden of showing that she was entitled to a writ of prohibition by clear and convincing evidence. View "State ex rel. Harris v. Bruns" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the district court's amended divorce judgment in this action involving the modification of a divorce judgment, holding that the court erred in calculating child support by imputing an income to Mother that was higher than her actual income.The divorce judgment awarded Mother and Father shared parental rights and responsibilities as to their two children and allocated primary physical residence to Mother. Both parties later filed motions for contempt and Father moved to modify the judgment as to the children's residence, child support, and his rights of contact. The court granted Father's motion to modify and entered an amended divorce judgment. On appeal, Mother argued that the court erred in failing to find that her income was $37,287. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the court's child support judgment and remanded the case, holding that the court's findings were insufficient to allow for effective appellate review because they did not indicate the court's basis for imputing income to Mother. View "Perreault v. Vallieres" on Justia Law

Cassandra Smith, formerly Goetz, appealed a judgment awarding her and Joshua Goetz equal residential responsibility of their minor children and awarding Goetz primary decision making responsibility. In Goetz v. Goetz, 988 N.W.2d 553, the North Dakota Supreme Court remanded the case concluding the district court did not make specific findings regarding whether the material change in circumstances resulted in a general decline or adversely affected the children. Upon reviewing the district court’s findings on remand, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment because the court once again failed to make specific findings regarding whether the material change in circumstances resulted in a general decline or adversely affected the children. View "Goetz v. Goetz, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that terminating Father's parental rights was not in reversing best interests and reversed the juvenile court's order terminating Father's parental right's to Child, holding that terminating Father's parental rights was not in Child's best interests.The county court, sitting as a juvenile court, terminated Father's parental rights and declined to impose a guardianship for Child. The court of appeals reversed the termination order and also vacated the order regarding the guardianship. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the State and the guardian ad litem did not present clear and convincing evidence that terminating Father's parental rights was in Child's best interests; and (2) to the extent the court of appeals' opinion suggested that the juvenile court should place Child with his eternal grandmother as guardian, this Court disapproved of that suggestion and modified the opinion accordingly. View "In re Denzel D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to Child, holding that the record did not support the district court's findings of parental fault or that termination of Father's parental rights was in Child's best interest.Father was abusing prescription drugs and illegal substances when Child was removed from his care. For the first sixteen months of the protective custody action, Father consistently visited child and completed the required parenting classes. By the time of the trial on the Department of Family Service's (DFS) motion to terminate Father's parental rights Father had been sober for several months and successfully participating in the drug court program. After learning that successful completion of the program would take Father at least another eight months the district court proceeded with the termination trial and subsequently terminated Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) when there is evidence that a parent has been successfully attempting to overcome an addiction to substances, the district court can lawfully continue the termination proceedings to allow the parent to make further progress and complete their case plan; and (2) substantial evidence did not support the district court's findings in this case. View "In re Parental Rights as to G.R.S." on Justia Law

The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and Court Appointed Special Advocates of New Hampshire (CASA) appealed a circuit court order denying DCYF’s petitions to terminate the mother’s parental rights over E.R. and H.R. The mother had five children; E.R. and H.R. were the youngest. The fathers of E.R. and H.R. were unknown. In November 2019, the circuit court found the mother neglected four of her children, including E.R. and H.R. The circuit court held a nine-month review hearing in October 2020 and found the mother to be in partial compliance with a case plan filed at the beginning of DCYF's involvement. The court ultimately transferred legal custody to DCYF, and E.R. and H.R. were removed from the mother’s care. In October 2021, the circuit court held a permanency hearing. Both DCYF and CASA recommended adoption as the permanency plan and termination of the mother’s parental rights over E.R. and H.R. In denying the termination, the trial court concluded that while it is in the children’s best interest to remain out of their mother’s care, it is not in their best interest that her parental rights be terminated. DCYF and CASA moved for reconsideration, which the circuit court denied. Finding no abuse of discretion, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order. View "In re E.R.; In re H.R." on Justia Law

This appeal arises from a partition action by Plaintiff against her former significant other, Defendant.  The trial court entered default and a default judgment against Defendant. Nearly two years later, Defendant moved to vacate the default and resulting judgment, alleging he was never effectively served with the summons and complaint. The trial court granted the motion. On appeal, Plaintiff argued the trial court should not have granted Defendant set aside relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). She argued her personal service of the summons and complaint on Defendant was proper, and section 473, subdivision (b) applies instead, rendering Defendant’s motion “untimely.” Plaintiff also argued the trial court abused its discretion in not considering the estoppel doctrine when making its ruling.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Defendant’s motion to set aside the default and default judgment. On the record, the trial court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over Defendant due to improper service of the summons and complaint. Defendant was “under no duty to act upon a defectively served summons.” (Kappel v. Bartlett (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1457, 1466.) Because the court had no jurisdiction in light of defective service, the court did not address Plaintiff’s remaining argument regarding equitable estoppel. View "Braugh v. Dow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Father's motion to withdraw his plea of no contest to one of two grounds alleged in the State's petition to terminate Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that Father knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pled no contest.In its termination petition under Wis. Stat. 48.415 the State claimed both that Father's daughter remained a child in continuing need of protection or services (CHIPS) and that Father failed to assume parental responsibility for his daughter. Father pled no contest to the continuing CHIPS ground. Thereafter, Father filed a motion for plea withdrawal. The circuit court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed on the grounds that the State lacked evidence establishing the validity of the plea. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Father knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pled no contest to the continuing CHIPS ground for terminating his parental rights; and (2) therefore, the court of appeals erred in permitting Father to withdraw his plea. View "State v. A.G." on Justia Law