Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition against the Logan County Common Pleas Court and Judge Natasha Kennedy, a judge of the Logan County Common Pleas Court, Family Court Division, holding that Relators, Josephine Davis, John Doe, and Jane Doe, were entitled to the writ.Davis, the biological mother of H.P., consented to the placement of care, custody, and control over H.P. to John and Jane Doe for purposes of adoption. The Does then filed an adoption petition for H.P. Thereafter, Kaidin Whitrock, H.P.'s biological father, filed a complaint to allocate parental rights and responsibilities. The probate court determined that Whitrock's consent to the adoption was not required under Ohio Rev. Code 3107.07(B)(1) because he failed to register as the putative father. The district court reversed, but the Supreme Court reversed. At issue was whether Judge Kennedy could continue to exercise juvenile court jurisdiction without interfering with the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the probate court. The Supreme Court granted Relators' requested writ of prohibition, holding that Judge Kennedy may not continue to exercise jurisdiction over Whitrock's petition to allocate parental rights and his request for a temporary order of parenting time. View "State ex rel. Davis v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of divorce entered by the district court as to the disposition of certain property and the dissolution of Cole G. Bridges Wild Blueberry LLC, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to order the dissolution of the LLC and erred in setting aside certain property to Cole Bridges.In 2020, Candy Littell filed for divorce from Bridges. The district court granted the divorce. On appeal, Bridges argued that the district court erred in evaluating and classifying a Cessna airplane and lacked jurisdiction to dissolve the LLC. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part and remanded the case, holding (1) the court did not have jurisdiction over the LLC and thus could not order its dissolution; and (2) the court erred in its classification and valuation of the Cessna airplane. View "Littell v. Bridges" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in this dispute between the children and grandchildren of Martin and Gay Aimone regarding their inheritances and ownership interests in the family ranch, holding that the court erred in part.In one appeal, the Aimones' surviving children (Chris and Colleen) challenged the district court's reformation of Gay's trust to reflect her intention that her surviving children and grandchildren be beneficiaries under the trust. In the second appeal, four of the Aimones' grandchildren (the Aimones brothers) argued that the district court improperly rejected their claims that Chris and Colleen violated their fiduciary obligations as the manager of one of the Aimone entities and as trustee of the trust. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's ruling in the first appeal concerning the intention of the trust; but (2) reversed the ruling in the second appeal, holding that Chris breached her fiduciary duties to the Aimone entity and should be removed as manager and that Colleen breached her fiduciary duties to Gay's trust, but damages were not proven to a reasonable degree of certainty. View "Aimone v. Aimone" on Justia Law

Wayne Anderson appealed, and Renee Anderson cross-appealed the parties' divorce judgment. The parties raised issues concerning the district court’s marital estate valuation and distribution. Wayne also argued the court erred when it ordered him to pay attorney fees as a sanction for discovery violations and contempt. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the contempt decision because Wayne did not timely appeal that order. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the award of attorney fees. The Court reversed the district court’s property valuation, concluding the court erred as a matter of law when it valued a capital loss carryover for tax purposes and when it excluded a portion of the parties’ assets from the marital estate. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider its property distribution. View "Anderson v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Michael Knudsen appealed a district court order determining Knudsen did not establish a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility and denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility, and from a district court order denying his motion to disqualify Tessa Falcon’s counsel. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Falcon v. Knudsen, et al." on Justia Law

T.L.B. appealed a district court judgment changing the surname of her child from T.L.B.’s surname to a hyphenated surname under N.D.C.C. § 14- 20-57(7). The child’s hyphenated name combined her father’s and mother’s surnames. On appeal, T.L.B. argued the district court: (1) erroneously found she changed her surname after her marriage; (2) erred because it hyphenated H.R.B’s name on the erroneous basis that she shared a name with no one else in her household; (3) erred because it did not consider the factors for changing a name under N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3); (4) erred because it did not consider T.L.B.’s emotional injury as an injury for purposes of N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3); (5) erred in hyphenating H.R.B.’s surname because it had insufficient best interests of the child evidence; and (6) erred in hyphenating H.R.B.’s surname because the suggestion to hyphenate the child’s surname was raised for the first time at the evidentiary proceeding. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "E.R.J. v. T.L.B." on Justia Law

Jerome Lowe, Jr. appealed the grant of a domestic violence protection order, arguing the district court erred in granting the order and failed to make sufficient findings to enable the North Dakota Supreme Court to properly review the order. The Supreme Court concurred the findings were insufficient, so it remanded with instructions for the district court to make sufficient findings to enable review of the order. View "Legacie-Lowe v. Lowe" on Justia Law

The Agency filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of eight children, alleging sexual abuse. Mother initially indicated that her deceased mother “had some Native ancestry.” Father reported “no Native American ancestry.” Days later, Mother reported that “she is not Native American and she paid for genetic testing.” At the detention hearing, Mother’s counsel represented that Mother has no Indian ancestry that she knows. The juvenile court responded: "Maybe there was a misunderstanding. I’ll make a finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA, 25 U.S.C. 1901) does not apply.” Mother's ICWA-020 form indicated “no Indian ancestry as far as I know.” Father's form indicated “None.” The maternal aunt and the paternal grandfather both reported no documented information about Native American ancestry.After the contested hearing, the juvenile court declared dependency. A maternal cousin, the grandfather, and an aunt attended. The court again asked about Native American ancestry. The parents responded no. The court's finding that ICWA did not apply was included in the order.The parents did not challenge the jurisdictional findings or the dispositional orders but alleged that the Agency failed to satisfy its initial duty of inquiry into the children’s possible Native American heritage. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting their contention that the Agency was required to interview five additional extended family members, acknowledging that the Agency and the juvenile court have an “affirmative and continuing” duty of inquiry. View "In re E.W." on Justia Law

Appellants were the maternal grandparents of the dependent child C.P. At a permanency hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the juvenile court ordered a legal guardianship for the child and appointed grandparents as his guardians. Grandparents contended the court should have instead selected adoption as the child’s permanent plan and designated them as the child’s prospective adoptive parents. The Court of Appeal agreed with grandparents and therefore reversed the order of legal guardianship. The Court directed the juvenile court to reconsider the matter given this opinion and any changed circumstances. View "In re C.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court in favor of Mother and permitting Mother to vaccinate the parties' two minor children for COVID-19 consistent with the recommendation of the children's pediatrician, holding that there was no error.In 2020, the family court entered a final judgment of divorce between the parties setting forth provisions governing the children's custody and visitation, including the provision that "[n]either party shall unreasonably withhold his or her consent to medical treatment for the children or the administration of medication recommendation by the pediatrician of the children." In 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief after final judgment seeking the court's permission to vaccinate the children for COVID-19, consistent with the pediatrician's recommendation. The trial justice allowed the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice's factual findings did not overlook or misconceive any aspect of the matter, nor were they otherwise clearly wrong. View "Nagel v. Nagel" on Justia Law