Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying Petitioners' motion to intervene in this abuse and neglect case involving their niece, G.G., holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources instituted an abuse and neglect proceeding against G.G.'s mother and father. Ultimately, G.G.'s biological father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights, and G.G.'s mother's parental rights were involuntarily terminated after a hearing. Thereafter, Respondents, G.G.'s foster parents, filed a motion to intervene in the abuse and neglect proceedings seeking to adopt G.G. Petitioners then filed their motion to intervene, seeking permanent placement of G.G. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion and denied Petitioners' motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis to set aside the circuit court's determination. View "In re G.G." on Justia Law

Audrey Charlton appealed a magistrate court’s judgment modifying the residential custody of the parties’ minor children to give their father, Russell Pottenger, primary physical custody and awarding Charlton physical custody on alternating weekends during the school year and one-half of each summer vacation. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the magistrate court erred when it failed to address Charlton’s primary ground for modification in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, the Court vacated the magistrate court’s judgment modifying custody and its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pottenger v. Charlton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals dismissing as untimely Mother's appeal from the juvenile court's termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father, holding that Mother's time to file a notice of appeal was extended in this case.After a hearing, the juvenile court terminated entered an order terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights to their two children. Father timely filed his notice of appeal, but the court of appeals determined that Mother's appeal was not filed within fifteen days of the termination order, as required by Utah R. App. P. 52(a). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Utah R. App. P. 52(c), together with Father's appeal, extended Mother's time to file a notice of appeal. View "In re C.D.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's order finding Mother in contempt and modifying the underlying divorce decree, holding that the district court's finding of contempt must be reversed.The parties' divorce decree granted joint custody of the parties' two children. Mother later filed a petition to modify custody, seeking sole legal and primary residential custody of the children. Father responded with his own petition to modify custody. Father also sought to hold Mother in contempt. The district court (1) found Mother in contempt for unreasonably withholding visitation, unreasonably denying Father's requests to travel with the children, and failing to return Father's medical records; and (2) found that modification of the decree was justified. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion when it determined that clear and convincing evidence supporting finding Mother in contempt of court because the decree was ambiguous; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the decree to clarify its travel and visitation provisions; and (3) Mother was not entitled to relief on her remaining claims of error. View "Evans v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental and custodial rights due to her substance abuse problem, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Mother's rights and in declining to extend her improvement period or grant an additional, post-dispositional improvement period.After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court denied Mother's motion for a post-dispositional improvement period and terminated her parental and custodial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) refusing to extend Mother's post-adjudicatory improvement period; (2) denying Mother's motion for a post-dispositional improvement period; and (3) terminating Mother's parental and custodial rights. View "In re H.D." on Justia Law

Robin J. appealed the denial of her request to renew a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Michael M., the father of their two children. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court misapplied the law in denying Robin’s renewal request, and that Robin established a reasonable apprehension of future abuse. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to grant the renewal request and decide whether the DVRO should be renewed for five or more years, or permanently. View "Michael M. v. Robin J." on Justia Law

removed an Alaska Native child from his mother and placed him with a relative, the child experienced suicidal ideation and checked himself into a psychiatric facility. Following a period of seemingly voluntary care, OCS requested a hearing to place the child at an out-of-state secure residential psychiatric treatment facility. The child’s Tribe intervened and challenged the constitutionality of AS 47.10.087, the manner in which evidence was received, and alleged due process violations. The child joined in some of these objections. The superior court ordered the child placed at a secure residential psychiatric treatment facility per AS 47.10.087. The Tribe, but not the child, appealed the placement decision, contending primarily that the superior court erred in proceeding under AS 47.10.087 and in making its substantive findings, and plainly erred in authorizing placement pursuant to AS 47.10.087 without addressing the Indian Child Welfare Act’s (ICWA) placement preferences. The Alaska Supreme Court found no error in the court’s application of AS 47.10.087 or its substantive findings, and thus affirmed the superior court’s placement determination. The Court expressed concern that the trial court failed to make required inquiries and findings related to ICWA’s placement preferences. However, this did not amount to plain error. The Supreme Court did not reach the Tribe’s other arguments as the Tribe has either waived them or lacked standing to raise them. View "Tuluksak Native Community v. Dept. of Health & Soc. Srvs." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, R.M., holding that Father was not entitled to relief as to his arguments on appeal.The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Father based on his incarceration and the child's placement the care of DCYF for more than twelve months. The trial justice ultimately determined that DCYF had met its burden of proof for the termination of parental rights petition by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) its finding as to parental unfitness; (2) finding that DCYF made reasonable efforts to "encourage and strengthen the parental relationship"; and (3) determining that it was in R.M.'s best interests for Father's parental rights to be terminated. View "In re R.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's motion to modify alimony for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to modify alimony.The parties in this case were divorced by consent decree that awarded Appellant alimony that could be modified if Appellee accepted a veteran's disability pension. Appellant later filed her complaint for modification alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances. The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it believed it was being asked to divide Appellee's veteran's disability benefits, an action that was preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was merely being asked to consider modifying alimony based on a reduction in Appellant's nondisability pension he shared with Appellee, and the district court had jurisdiction to consider this request. View "Parish v. Parish" on Justia Law

Jane Doe appealed the youth court’s denial of her motion to transfer for lack of jurisdiction and motion for recusal. In 2019, Jane was arrested in Natchez, Adams County, Mississippi, and charged with possession and sale of a controlled substance. At the time of her arrest, Jane was pregnant and homeless. As a condition of her bond with Adams County, Jane was placed at Born Free, a residential facility in Hinds County that provided substance abuse treatment to pregnant mothers. Jane entered Born Free on May 30, 2019. On July 16, 2019, Jane gave birth to Karen at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Hinds County. Jane later returned to Born Free with Karen. On August 19, 2019, Jane was negatively discharged from Born Free for various program violations. The Adams County Sheriff’s Department was contacted, and Jane was transported back to Adams County. The Adams County Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) was also contacted and took Karen into custody. Karen was placed in an approved foster home where she remained under the supervision and control of CPS. Upon her return to Adams County, Jane rented an apartment in Adams County. On December 10, 2019, the Adams County County Court, sitting as a youth court,2 adjudicated Karen a neglected child. As part of the permanency plan of reunification, CPS developed a service agreement with Jane. Jane failed to comply with the service agreement and further failed to maintain contact with CPS. As a result, on December 10, 2020, the youth court found that it was in Karen’s best interests for the permanency plan to change from reunification to adoption. CPS ultimately filed a petition to terminate parental rights. Jane moved to transfer her case to Hinds County since she was in court-ordered rehabilitation in Hinds County, and that the judge presiding over her case should have recused because he concluded termination of her parental rights was proper. Jane's motions were denied and she appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court found no reversible error in the court's denial of Jane's transfer motion and recusal and affirmed. View "Jane Doe v. Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law