Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights as to his minor child (Child), holding that the trial court did not violate Father's right to adequate notice when it terminated Father's parental rights after the close of the evidence pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 17-112(j)(3)(B)(ii).At the close of the evidence in this case the Commissioner of Children and Families moved to amend the petition to allege a different ground for the termination of Father's rights. The trial court granted the motion pursuant to Practice Book section 34a-1(d). Thereafter, the Commissioner of Children and Families filed an amended summary of the facts in support of its petition claiming that grounds existed for termination of Father's parental rights pursuant to section 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(ii). At the conclusion of trial, the trial court granted the petition to terminate Father's parental rights on ground (B)(ii). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not violate Father's constitutional due process right to adequate notice by allowing the Commissioner to amend the petition after the close of the evidence and terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to ground (B)(ii). View "In re Gabriel S." on Justia Law

Malinowski filed for dissolution of her marriage to Martin. While that case was pending, Malinowski filed an ex parte request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA; Fam. Code, 6200), seeking to protect herself and the parties’ children. Pending a hearing on the merits, the trial court issued a domestic violence temporary restraining order (DVTRO) against Martin with “no-contact” and “stay-away” provisions. Subsequently, the court modified the DVTRO to allow Martin brief contact with the children consistent with a visitation order. Malinowski contends the trial court erred by modifying the DVTRO without adhering to Code of Civil Procedure section 533, which requires notice and a showing of changed circumstances for modification or dissolution of an injunction or a temporary restraining order.The court of appeal concluded that section 533 does not provide the exclusive means by which a trial court in a DVPA action may modify a DVTRO; a trial court is not necessarily obligated to proceed under section 533 before modifying a DVTRO to allow for exceptions consistent with child visitation ordered in a parallel dissolution case. In an appropriate case, the requirements of due process may require the court to consider evidence presented at a noticed hearing consistent with section 533 in order to resolve disputed factual matters. View "Malinowski v. Martin" on Justia Law

Appellant Shauna Willis appealed an order granting her request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her ex-husband, Respondent Ricky Willis. She contended the family court erred under Family Code section 3044(a) because the court maintained joint physical custody by keeping in place a visitation order which had granted each approximately equal custody time with their child, T.W. The issue presented by this appeal was whether the rebuttable presumption of section 3044(a) arose in a proceeding for issuance of a DVRO when neither party was seeking custody or a modification of a custody or visitation order. To this, the Court of Appeal concluded the presumption of section 3044(a) did not arise in that situation. "Our conclusion is based on the plain language of section 3044(a), which by its terms applies only when a party is seeking custody of the child and is reinforced by other statutory provisions." Because the presumption of section 3044(a) did not arise, the family court erred by awarding Appellant sole legal and physical custody of T.W. Although Respondent did not appeal, the Court reversed that part of the order in the interest of justice. View "Marriage of Willis v. Costa-Willis" on Justia Law

Wife Connie Stockton challenged a superior court’s order denying relief from judgment under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b). She sought to overturn a default judgment entered against her in 2013, that divided marital property upon divorce from her husband Veral Stockton. Asserting that she suffered from severe depression during the divorce proceedings and that her husband improperly served the notice of default, she argued the judgment was void for lack of due process and, alternatively, should have been vacated due to extraordinary circumstances. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s factual finding that she was not incompetent at the time of divorce and its legal rulings that the judgment was not void and extraordinary circumstances warranting relief were not shown. View "Stockton v. Stockton" on Justia Law

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