Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

In 2011, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (the Department) initiated this action to terminate the parental rights of John Doe. The matter proceeded to trial where the magistrate court found that Doe had neglected and abandoned his minor child, D.C., and that it was in the best interest of the child that Doe's parental rights be terminated. Doe appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed: Doe failed to show that the magistrate erred in finding that he had abandoned D.C. "Even if the Department failed to implement the case plan in an appropriate fashion, the magistrate's finding of neglect was supported on a prong of neglect essentially independent of case plan performance. Doe has made no effort to show that it is not in the best interest of D.C. to terminate Doe's parental rights. There are no grounds to reverse the termination order." View "Health & Welfare v. Doe" on Justia Law

Michelle Anderson appealed the district court's denial of her motion to dismiss kidnapping charges brought against her for keeping the child she had with Ricky Anderson away. Michelle was obligated to deliver the child to Ricky under a parenting plan issued by a Montana court, but never completed the exchange. In her motion to dismiss, Michelle argued that Ricky is not a custodial parent under I.C. 18-4501 and therefore Michelle could not have committed kidnapping. The district court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal that decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Ricky was a custodial parent for the purposes of IC 18-4501(2), and that Michelle could be charged with kidnapping based on Ricky's visitation rights that granted him lawful care and control of the child. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Idaho v. Anderson" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a divorce proceeding between Michael and Susan Vierstra. The magistrate court made a finding regarding the expected tax liability for 2009 when determining the value of the Vierstra family dairy. In its Judgment and Decree of Divorce, the magistrate court ordered the parties to adjust the valuations and equalizations according to the actual tax liability. After Susan objected to the form of the judgment, the magistrate court entered an Amended Judgment which did not alter the language regarding valuation of the dairy and the parties' obligation to adjust the valuations and equalizations. Because the actual tax liability for 2009 turned out to be much less than expected, Susan filed a motion seeking an adjustment of the equalization payment she was due. The magistrate court ultimately denied her motion, and Susan appealed the Amended Judgment to the district court, asserting that the magistrate court erred in its valuation of the dairy and by denying her motion to adjust the equalization payment. The district court dismissed the appeal, holding that Susan had not timely appealed from the judgment that determined the value of the dairy and that the magistrate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain her motion to adjust. After its review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court held that Susan's appeal of the factual finding regarding the amount of the parties' tax liability was indeed untimely, and therefore reversed the district court's decision that the magistrate court lacked jurisdiction to consider her Motion to Adjust. View "Vierstra v. Vierstra" on Justia Law

A mother appealed a magistrate court's order terminating her parental rights with respect to her youngest child. John Doe was born in September, 2011, and was declared to be in imminent danger two days after birth. John's mother, Jane Doe (Mother) had eight other children, all with her ex-husband (Father). One died shortly after birth, and the others are aged three to fifteen years old. Mother was not caring for any of these children when the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) removed John from her care. In its Memorandum Decision and Order issued the same day, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother "cannot parent this child now and that inability will continue indefinitely" and termination of her parental rights would be in the child's best interest. Mother's argument on appeal focused on whether the magistrate court properly weighed the evidence in making its best interest of the child determination. Upon review, the Supreme Court was satisfied that substantial evidence supported the magistrate court's findings, and accordingly held that the magistrate court did not err in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in John's best interest. View "Idaho Dept of Health & Welfare v. Jane (2012-05) Doe" on Justia Law

John Doe (Father) is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States illegally in 2003. In mid-2007, he married Jane Doe (Mother) in Payette, Idaho. After they were married, Father was arrested in Ontario, Oregon, when he attempted to open a bank account with a false social security number. He served three months in jail, and was then transferred to a jail in Portland to be held for deportation. He agreed to voluntarily leave the United States and did so, returning to his parents’ home in Salamanca, Guanajuato, Mexico. Mother also went to Mexico, but she returned to the United States after she became pregnant. Their child (Daughter) was born in the United States in November 2008. Mother also had a four-year-old son by another man. In March 2009, Father reentered the United States illegally in an attempt to be with his wife and Daughter, but he was caught in Arizona and returned to Mexico. In March, 2009, Mother was living in Middleton, Idaho, with her boyfriend, who had a son who was about seven years old. Mother and her boyfriend took his son to the hospital regarding severe bruising on his head. Because Mother and her boyfriend gave conflicting accounts of how the boy was injured, the medical personnel notified law enforcement. The investigation disclosed Mother’s son had struck her boyfriend’s son several times with a hairbrush. Daughter and the boyfriend’s son were taken into custody by law enforcement, and on the same day the county prosecuting attorney filed a petition under the Child Protective Act with respect to those children. The petition alleged that the name of Daughter’s father was unknown and that he was in Mexico at an unknown address. Father spoke by telephone from Mexico with the Department’s caseworker that he would like to be involved in Daughter’s life and to be reunited with Mother and her son. He also said he would like Mother to begin the process that would allow him to come into the United States lawfully. In August, the Department’s caseworker told Father she would present a home study to the court if it was received in time. On September 15, 2010, the Mexican consulate emailed the report to the caseworker. The termination hearing was held on September 29. At that hearing, the Department did not present the study to the court. The caseworker testified that she disregarded the report because the Department had decided to terminate Father’s parental rights. Thus, default was entered against Father, even though he had clearly not been properly served with process regarding the termination proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the magistrate court and remanded this case with instructions for the court to order the Department to take all reasonable steps to promptly place Daughter with Father in Mexico. View "RE: Termination of Parental Rights of John (2011-23) Doe" on Justia Law

At issue in this divorce proceeding was a magistrate court's decision that found it was in the best interest of Appellant Tracy Jo and Respondent Charles Clair, Jr.'s child to reside primarily in Pocatello. The custody plan contained alternative options depending on whether and when Tracy relocated back to the Pocatello area after moving to Ely, Nevada following the parties' separation. Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed an issue concerning the introduction of the custody evaluator's opinions regarding an acceptable custody arrangement. After review of the facts in record, the Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court's decision. View "Clair v. Clair" on Justia Law

This case came before the Supreme Court on an appeal from a magistrate court's determination on custody and visitation of minor children in a divorce proceeding. In a memorandum decision, the magistrate court awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with primary physical custody awarded to the mother. The father, Russell Peterson, alleged on appeal that the magistrate court abused its discretion by awarding unequal visitation time to the mother, Laura Peterson, and by allowing the mother to move to Utah with the children. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the magistrate court. The Court held that the findings of the magistrate court were not clearly erroneous and that the court had substantial evidence to support its conclusions regarding visitation. Further, the Court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Laura to move to Utah with the children. View "Peterson v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Defendant Roberta Shore retained attorney third-party Defendant Nicholas Bokides to represent her in her divorce from William Shore. Pursuant to the divorce decree, William took all interest in the couple's business, Bear River Equipment, Inc., a farm equipment dealership. Roberta had instructed Bokides to provide notice to McCormick International USA, Inc, a Bear River creditor, that she would no longer personally guarantee its advances. Bokides never provided the notice, and McCormick sued Roberta to enforce the guarantee. Roberta brought a third party complaint against Bokides for malpractice. Bokides did not deny the malpractice claim, but alleged that Roberta failed to mitigate her damages because she did not seek to enforce the divorce decree’s mandate that William hold her harmless from all Bear River debts. Bokides appealed the trial court's judgment in Roberta's favor. Roberta cross-appealed the district court's determination that her damages were limited to advances made after entry of the divorce decree. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed: "substantial and competent evidence in the record supports the district court's finding that Roberta reasonably concluded that William was judgment proof and that it would therefore be futile to enforce the divorce decree against him. An implicit corollary of that finding is the finding that McCormick could not successfully seek compensation from William. Thus substantial, competent evidence supports the district court’s determination of the extent of Roberta's damages."

The appellant in this case, Kenneth Adler, had been appointed as guardian ad litem for the children of Plaintiff-Respondent Joseph Abolafia and Defendant-Respondent Rebecca Reeves who were involved in a proceeding to modify the custody provisions of their divorce decree. After the parties reached an agreement to resolve their dispute and the magistrate court terminated Appellant as guardian ad litem. Appellant sought to appeal, challenging his termination. The district court held Appellant did not have standing to appeal, and dismissed the appeal and awarded attorney fees to the parents. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court: "Although he may have been miffed by his termination as guardian ad litem, injury to his pride is not justiciable. After he was terminated as guardian ad litem . . ., his actions in appealing to the district court have simply been those of an officious intermeddler. He had no standing to appeal."

Appellant is the mother of two minor children who were placed into the custody of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare on suspicion that they were abused or neglected. On March 27, 2009, the Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney filed a petition under the Child Protective Act alleging that Appellant’s infant daughter was abused. On April 8, 2009, the prosecutor filed an amended petition adding Appellant’s son and alleging that he was neglected. A year later, the prosecutor filed a petition seeking to terminate Appellant’s parental rights in her two children. The matter was tried to the magistrate court, which on December 7, 2011, issued its decision. The court found that Appellant had failed to complete the tasks required of her under the case plan. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment terminating Appellants parental rights.