Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Husband and Wife divorced in 2020, with Husband required to pay child support and attorney fees. Two years later, Wife initiated a contempt proceeding against Husband for failing to comply with the divorce decree. On the day of the contempt trial, Husband informed the court he was unable to attend due to vehicle issues. The magistrate court proceeded with the trial in his absence, found him in criminal contempt, and sentenced him to 70 days in jail, with 50 days suspended, and ordered him to pay additional attorney fees.The district court affirmed the magistrate court's decision to hold the trial in Husband's absence but reversed the incarceration sanction, finding insufficient evidence that Husband waived his right to counsel. The district court concluded that the magistrate court violated Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 75(l)(1) by imposing incarceration without an attorney present to represent Husband.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the magistrate court erred in holding the contempt trial in Husband's absence. The court held that a contemnor's right to be present at a criminal contempt trial is protected under the Sixth Amendment, similar to a criminal defendant's right. The court concluded that Husband's willful absence did not constitute a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to be present. The proper procedure would have been to issue a writ of attachment to ensure Husband's attendance.The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the order of contempt and remand to the magistrate court for further proceedings. The court also found the district court's failure to address Wife's request for attorney fees harmless, as Husband's appeal was not frivolous. No attorney fees were awarded on appeal, and costs were awarded to Husband. View "Salazar v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Jennifer and Jesse Smith divorced in 2017 after fifteen years of marriage. Jennifer, a stay-at-home mother, and Jesse, a construction superintendent, entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement requiring Jesse to pay Jennifer spousal support until January 1, 2025. The agreement included a "Review Term" stating that spousal support would be reviewed every two years. In 2018, Jesse unilaterally reduced the spousal support payments and later stopped paying altogether, leading Jennifer to file a breach of contract action.The magistrate judge dismissed Jesse's petition to modify the spousal support due to a non-merger clause, which kept the spousal support provision outside the court's jurisdiction. Jennifer then sought partial summary judgment in district court, arguing that the Review Term was too vague to be enforceable. The district court agreed, striking the Review Term but upholding the rest of the spousal support provision under the agreement's severability clause. The jury found Jesse in breach of the agreement and awarded Jennifer $76,514 in damages, plus attorney fees and costs.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the Review Term was unenforceable due to its vagueness, indefiniteness, and uncertainty. The court also upheld the district court's application of the severability clause, maintaining the enforceability of the remaining spousal support provision. Jennifer was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

James Wilson and Jillian Wilson, who were married and had one minor child, divorced, leading to a custody dispute. The magistrate court awarded primary physical custody to Jillian and allowed her to relocate with the child to Australia, where both hold citizenship. Jillian was also granted sole legal custody over educational and medical decisions, while James was given two weeks of visitation annually during school breaks. James appealed the decision.The magistrate court's decision was based on several factors, including the unhealthy relationship between James and the child, characterized by controlling and manipulative behavior. The court found that James's actions, such as co-sleeping and inappropriate touching, created an environment that could potentially harm the child. The court also considered Jillian's motivations for relocating, including better family support and higher income prospects in Australia.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the magistrate court's decision. The court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Jillian to relocate with the child, as the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence. The court also found that the magistrate court correctly applied the legal standard for relocation and considered the best interests of the child.Additionally, the Supreme Court of Idaho upheld the magistrate court's decision to limit James's physical custody and visitation, as well as the award of sole legal custody to Jillian for educational and medical decisions. The court concluded that these decisions were in the best interests of the child and were supported by substantial evidence. Jillian was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "Wilson v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Amanda Mitchell filed for a civil protection order against Nicholas Ramlow in October 2020, alleging that he was stalking her by tracking her movements and placing a tracking device on her car. The magistrate court issued a temporary ex parte protection order and scheduled a hearing. Due to COVID-19 mask mandates, Ramlow was denied entry to the courthouse for refusing to wear a mask, leading to the hearing being rescheduled. At the rescheduled hearing, Ramlow was again absent, and the magistrate court issued a one-year protection order requiring him to attend a 52-week domestic violence course and review hearings.Ramlow filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then appealed to the district court. The protection order was extended but expired before the district court heard the appeal. The district court requested supplemental briefing on mootness and ultimately dismissed the appeal as moot, finding no applicable exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Ramlow appealed the district court's decision, arguing that his appeal still presented justiciable issues and fell within exceptions to the mootness doctrine.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the appeal was moot because the protection order had expired, and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. The court found that the issues were too fact-specific to be capable of repetition yet evading review, there were no collateral legal consequences, and the case did not raise issues of substantial public interest. The court also declined to vacate the expired protection order and denied attorney fees to both parties, awarding costs to Mitchell as the prevailing party. View "Mitchell v. Ramlow" on Justia Law

This case involves child custody proceedings between Isaac William Hess and Lisa Ann Hess, who have two minor children registered as members of the Cherokee Nation. Isaac alleged that Lisa abused the children by spanking them with a PVC pipe and claimed she was a negligent mother. During the proceedings, Isaac's father was briefly granted emergency guardianship by the District Court of the Cherokee Nation, but the case was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues. The Idaho magistrate court awarded Lisa sole physical custody and joint legal custody with final decision-making authority, and ordered Isaac to pay child support backdated to January 1, 2021.Isaac appealed to the district court, arguing that the magistrate court erred by not consulting with the Cherokee Nation court regarding jurisdiction, failing to refer his child abuse allegations to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), focusing on only one statutory factor in awarding custody, effectively granting Lisa sole legal custody without proper findings, and backdating the child support award. The district court affirmed the magistrate court's decisions on jurisdiction, the child abuse referral, and physical custody, but Isaac appealed further.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decisions on jurisdiction, the child abuse referral, and physical custody. The court held that the magistrate court correctly determined it had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and that Isaac's allegations did not constitute child abuse under Idaho law. However, the court reversed the district court's affirmation of the magistrate court's decisions on legal custody and backdated child support. The magistrate court's legal custody decision was found to be internally contradictory, and its decision to backdate child support deviated from the Idaho Child Support Guidelines without explanation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these issues. The court also awarded Lisa partial attorney fees for responding to Isaac's jurisdictional argument. View "Hess v. Hess" on Justia Law

Jacob Wilde and Mickayla Taggart, formerly married, are parents to a minor child, E.W. Following their divorce in 2018, Wilde was ordered to pay $143.07 per month in child support. Wilde later filed petitions to modify the custody arrangement and child support, citing Taggart's alleged incapacity and unemployment. Taggart responded, explaining her inability to work due to an autoimmune disease and requested child support modification based on the Idaho Child Support Guidelines.The magistrate court found that Taggart's income had been minimal since the petition was filed and imputed her income at minimum wage. Wilde's income was determined to be $58,240 annually. The court retroactively modified child support to $420.34 per month starting August 2019, creating an arrearage for Wilde. Wilde's motion to reconsider was denied, and the magistrate court reaffirmed its decision, adjusting the child support amount to $485.34 from June 2021.Wilde appealed to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate court's decision. The district court found that the magistrate court had substantial evidence to support its findings and did not abuse its discretion in making the child support modification retroactive.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court found that the magistrate court acted within its discretion, supported by substantial evidence of the parties' changed incomes. The court noted that Wilde had been aware of the potential for retroactive modification and had not disputed the child support calculations. The Supreme Court awarded attorney fees and costs to Taggart, deeming Wilde's appeal frivolous and without foundation. View "Wilde v. Taggart" on Justia Law

In this case, the State of Idaho removed five minor children from their parents' home following allegations of physical abuse. The children ranged in age from sixteen years to fourteen months. Law enforcement responded to a report of an altercation between the mother and the eldest child, during which the mother admitted to hitting the child with a plastic hanger. Other children reported frequent physical discipline, including being hit with belts and hands. The children were declared to be in imminent danger and were removed from the home.The Bannock County Prosecutor’s Office filed a petition under the Child Protective Act (CPA) to place the children in the custody of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW). The magistrate court held a shelter care hearing and found reasonable cause to believe the children were in danger, placing them in temporary custody of IDHW. The parents objected, arguing that the removal violated their constitutional rights and that the magistrate court’s findings were unsupported by substantial evidence.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the magistrate court’s adjudicatory decree. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the initial removal because the parents failed to raise the issue in the lower court. The Court also found that the challenge to the shelter care order was moot because it was supplanted by the adjudicatory decree. The Court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the older children to remain in the courtroom during the hearing and found that substantial and competent evidence supported the magistrate court’s decision to vest legal custody of the children in IDHW. The Court also declined to consider the parents' argument under the Idaho Parental Rights Act because it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "IDHW v. Doe" on Justia Law

Marianita Martinez alleged that after she and Victorio Carretero divorced in April 1995, they subsequently entered into a common law marriage between their divorce in April 1995 and their move to California in November 1995. After filing of cross-motions for summary judgment on the common law marriage issue, the magistrate court proceeded to hold an evidentiary hearing without ruling on the motions and without objection from either party. At the evidentiary hearing, the magistrate court excluded all evidence of the parties’ conduct on or after January 1, 1996, as being irrelevant to whether the parties had entered into a common law marriage prior to that date. This ruling resulted in the exclusion of, among other things, evidence of a life insurance application in which Carretero identified Martinez as his “wife” on January 10, 1996—two months after the parties left Idaho in November 1995. At the close of the hearing, the magistrate court concluded there was not sufficient evidence to show that the parties had consented to marry within the seven-month period prior to January 1, 1996. The magistrate court then dismissed Martinez’s claim of a common law marriage, and on appellate review, the district court affirmed. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remand. The Supreme Court found any error in the magistrate court’s decision to conduct an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment was invited and not preserved for appeal. The magistrate court erred by excluding evidence of the parties’ conduct after December 31, 1995, and by granting Carretero’s motion for an involuntary dismissal. The case was remanded with instructions that the district court remand this matter to the magistrate court for further proceedings. View "Martinez v. Carretero" on Justia Law

The parents in this case were brought to the attention of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare ("Department") regarding reports of neglect and physical abuse to their five children. The child protection case began in February 2023 as a protective supervision case. Nearly three months later, the magistrate court ordered that the children be removed from the home and placed in the legal custody of the Department. John Doe (Father) appealed the magistrate court’s order removing his five children from the parents’ custody and temporarily placing the children in the legal custody of the Department. Father argued the magistrate court’s order failed to contain detailed written findings as required by Idaho law, that the order was not supported by substantial and competent evidence, and that the magistrate court’s actions violated Father’s fundamental rights to the care and custody of his children. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court. View "IDHW v. John Doe" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court addressed a challenge to a magistrate court’s decision to take jurisdiction of an infant after finding that the infant was “at risk of being a victim of abuse, neglect, or abandonment.” The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“IDHW” or “Department”) filed a Child Protective Act (“CPA”) petition pursuant to Idaho Code section 16-1603(2) in March 2023 for an infant (“Infant”) who was about three months old. The magistrate court had jurisdiction over the infant’s older brother (“Toddler”), having removed Toddler at age eighteen months after determining Toddler had been physically abused, neglected, and subjected to an unstable home. Infant was born about four months after Toddler was placed in foster care. At the adjudicatory hearing pertaining to Infant, the magistrate court found: (1) Mother and Father failed to make any progress whatsoever on the case plan associated with Toddler; (2) Mother and Father were unresponsive and uncooperative with the Department; (3) none of the safety issues that were identified as part of Toddler’s removal had been alleviated; and (4) Mother and Father consistently failed to comply with a court order for drug testing (including a urinalysis and hair follicle testing). The Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the magistrate court’s decision. View "IDHW v. Jane Doe / IDHW v. John Doe" on Justia Law