Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the trial court's rulings in criminal cases and a separate civil case, holding that Petitioner failed to show cause why he should not be pro se barred for his repeated misuse of the Court's limited resources.Petitioner, an inmate whose most recent conviction was for possession of a controlled substance, began filing petitions in the Supreme Court in 2018 pertaining to several different criminal cases and a dependency case regarding his children. Petitioner filed the instant prohibition petition challenging the trial court's denial of a motion and seeking to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court denied the petition and directed Petitioner to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further pro se requests for relief. The Supreme Court then sanctioned Petitioner, holding that Petitioner had abused the Court's limited judicial resources. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals determining that the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, rejecting Father's statutory interpretation argument about the interplay between the child protection and predatory offender registration statutes, and affirming the termination of Father's parental rights by the juvenile court, holding that Father was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.While Father was incarcerated for an offense that arose out of the same circumstances as an offense enumerated in the predatory offender registration statute Mother gave birth to H.Q., who was adjudicated as a child in need of protection or services. The juvenile court terminated Father's parental rights to H.Q. because of his conviction. The court of appeals affirmed the juvenile court's termination of Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not err in determining that clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory ground for termination in Father's case. View "In re Welfare of Child of S.B.G." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the surviving parents of their deceased daughter, brought an action to nullify their daughter’s marriage to defendant, Eden Kol, based upon the allegation that their daughter and defendant entered into the marriage for the sole purpose of evading federal immigration laws to obtain permanent resident status for defendant. Defendant filed an exception of no cause of action, alleging the petition failed to state a cause of action for nullification of marriage under the Louisiana Civil Code. The trial court granted the exception, and the court of appeal affirmed. Finding no reversible error, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Wederstrandt v. Kol" on Justia Law

The putative biological father sought to rebut, pursuant to La. C.C. art. 198, a presumption set forth in La. C.C. art. 185, despite having filed his avowal petition more than one year after the birth of the child and even though no “bad faith” was found on the part of the mother. After years of litigation on preliminary issues, the appellate court reviewed an earlier district court ruling, which found that La. C.C. art. 198 was not unconstitutional, and reversed the district court, concluding Article 198 was unconstitutional as applied. On review, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that under the facts presented here, that the putative biological father had no fundamental constitutional right to parent a child born to a mother, who was married to and living with another man at the time of the child’s conception and birth. Therefore, the Court reversed the appellate court, reinstated the district court judgment holding that La. C.C. art. 198 was constitutional, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Kinnett v. Kinnett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding that Father committed an act of domestic or family violence against Child and that he represented a credible threat to the family's safety and thus granting Mother's petition for an ex parte petition order, holding that the trial court's evidence-based findings supported its judgment.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence presented supported the trial court's finding that Father committed an act of domestic or family violence; and (2) Mother presented probative evidence to support the trial court's finding that Father posed a credible threat to Mother or Child's safety. View "S.D. v. G.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the county court in favor of the decedent's brother in this estate case, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the county court erred.Jordon R. Wiggins died, leaving two minor children and an ex-wife. In response to a claim against the estate regarding life insurance coverage that Wiggins was required under the divorce decree to maintain for the children's benefit, Wiggins's ex-wife, as guardian and next friend of the minor children, his brother, and his father, as personal representative of Wiggins's estate, entered into a settlement agreement. Thereafter, the parties jointly filed a petition for a declaration of their rights and obligations under the agreement. The county court ruled in favor of the brother, and the ex-wife appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause with directions for the county court to rescind the agreement and conduct further proceedings, holding that a mutual mistake as to the existence of a fact that was a material inducement to the contract is not ground for reformation, although it may be ground for rescission. View "In re Estate of Wiggins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued a Missouri judge for putting his kids in jail twice, once after a custody hearing and again after ordering law enforcement to pick them up in Louisiana. The complaint alleged that Defendant’s action of placing Plaintiff’s children in jail and then later in a juvenile-detention facility violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendant argued that he should receive absolute immunity, but the district court disagreed and ruled that the case could proceed. At issue on appeal is whether judicial immunity shields these acts.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court explained that Defendant’s decision to personally escort the kids to jail took what would otherwise be a judicial act too far. Judges have the authority to order an officer or a bailiff to escort an unruly litigant to jail. The court wrote that Defendant crossed the line; however, when he personally escorted the kids to jail, stood there while they removed their clothes and belongings, and personally came back an hour later to release them. Further, the court explained that here, even if Defendant had no “express authority” to issue the pick-up order, he is immune because he had jurisdiction to issue one. He cannot be sued, in other words, no matter how erroneous his interpretation of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act may be. View "D. Bart Rockett v. The Honorable Eric Eighmy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding Mother primary custody of the couple's two children and dividing the marital property, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Father filed for divorce, and Mother counterclaimed for divorce. After a trial, the district court granted the parties a decree, awarded Mother primary custody of the parties' two children, ordered Father to pay Mother monthly child support, and divided the marital property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by admitting the opinion testimony and report of one of Mother's witnesses because Mother's failure to designate that witness as an expert witness was harmless; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by granting Mother primary custody or in its division of the marital property. View "Dutka v. Dutka" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the orders of the family court reopening a divorce case finalized by the family court more than two decades ago and awarding Steven Capaldi a portion of his pension to Anne Farrer, holding that the trial justice's decision granting Anne's motion for relief was incorrect as a matter of law.In 1993, the family court entered final judgment in the underlying divorce case. In 2017, Anne filed a motion for post-judgment relief seeking an award of one-half interest in the marital portion of Steven's pension on the ground that Steven "concealed" the pension at the time of the divorce. The trial justice granted relief. The Supreme Court vacated the decision below, holding that the statute of limitations in R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-17 barred Anne's belated request to reopen the final judgment. View "Capaldi v. Capaldi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the family court determining and assigning marital property, sanctioning Defendant $50,000, and ordering a $16,000 credit to Plaintiff, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.In 2000, the parties in this case married, and in 2017, the parties initiated divorce proceedings based on irreconcilable difference. At issue before the Supreme Court was the trial court's determination and equitable distribution of marital assets. After an eight-day trial, the trial justice issued a bench decision. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in the determination and assignment of marital assets; (2) did not err in the imposition of sanctions; and (3) did not abuse her discretion in ordering a $16,000 credit to Plaintiff. View "DiDonato v. DiDonato" on Justia Law