Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Mother Jane (2013-14) Doe appealed the termination of her parental relationship with her son JLS. Mother left JLS in the care of family members, who then placed JLS with Mr. and Mrs. Doe. The Does petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment. Following trial, the magistrate court granted that petition. Finding that the magistrate court's decision was supported by substantial, competent evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights. View "John Doe V. Jane Doe (2013-14)" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a divorce and custody dispute between Christopher Hopper and Suzanne Swinnerton. In 2005, Christopher filed suit on his own behalf, as well as that of his son and parents, against his wife, Suzanne, her parents, her Montana attorney, and other individuals, alleging a variety of tort claims. The district court dismissed all claims on summary judgment. Christopher appealed on behalf of all Appellants. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hopper v. Hopper" on Justia Law

Defendant-Respondent-Appellant Stephen Adams appealed a district court judgment that upheld a magistrate judge's order that dismissed his motions to modify child custody and child support. Defendant's had been held in contempt for failing to make one child support payment. He was unable to purge the contempt by paying all delinquent child support payments for reasons he said were beyond his control. A court can impose a criminal contempt sanction in nonsummary contempt proceedings only if the contemnor has been afforded the federal constitutional rights applicable to criminal contempt proceedings. The magistrate held that it could refuse to hear the Father's motions because he was unable to purge the contempt and could not prove that his inability was due to circumstances beyond his control. The district court held that refusal to hear the Father's motions was a permissible criminal contempt sanction. Idaho Code section 7-610 does not authorize denial of access to the courts as a criminal contempt sanction. Therefore, the district court erred in affirming the magistrate's order on the ground that it was a permissible criminal contempt sanction. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court's order. In addition, the Supreme Court held that refusal to hear a motion and dismissal of a motion that the contemnor did not purge the contempt violates Article I, Section 18 of the state constitution. The district court was reversed and the case remanded. View "Slane v. Adams" on Justia Law

John Doe was in prison when his son was born. The baby's mother was living with another man, and gave the boy the boyfriend's surname. The baby was abused while in her care; the Department of Health and Welfare took the child into custody. The boyfriend was listed as the putative father in a Child Protective Act (CPA) proceeding; after a DNA test, Doe was substituted as the putative father. Prior to the test, Doe had no prior contact with the child. The Department requested termination of Doe's and the biological mother's parental rights. The mother voluntarily consented to the termination. The Department submitted a new petition, requesting for the first time an "Order of Non-Establishment of Parental Rights." The Department averred that Doe was "not the 'parent' of [Son] as [he had] failed to assert any parental rights to [Son] either by statute or by timely establishing some relationship to [Son]." The magistrate judge entered her Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Nonestablishment of Paternity. Doe timely appealed. He raised two issues: (1) whether under Idaho Code he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing prior to the "nonestablishment" of his parental rights; and (2) whether his due process rights were violated. The Supreme Court concluded that Doe did not show he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing prior to the "nonestablishment" of his parental rights, or that his due process rights were violated. View "Doe v. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Pedro Pelayo appealed several rulings the magistrate court made in his divorce from Defendant-Respondent Bertha Pelayo. Specifically he challenged the magistrate's ruling with regard to: spousal maintenance awarded to Defendant; calculation of his annual income for child support calculation purposes; and the award of attorney fees. The district court upheld those challenged rulings; Plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding no error or abuse of discretion in the magistrate court's or district court's decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pelayo v. Pelayo" on Justia Law

The parties in this case appealed a magistrate court judgment concerning the division of certain property pursuant to a divorce decree. Appellant, Bill Clark raised three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in affirming the different methods of valuation the magistrate court used in valuing and distributing Appellee Amy Baruch's 401(k) and the "Schwab 3713" account; (2) whether the court properly characterized the "Veltex" distribution as income presumptively belonging to the community; and (3) whether Amy was entitled to attorney fees on appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) the district court did not err in affirming the different methods the magistrate court used to value and divide Amy's 401(k) and the Schwab 3713 account; (2) the Veltex distribution was properly classified as income and therefore community property; and (2) Amy was not entitled to attorney fees because this appeal was not brought or pursued frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. View "Baruch v. Clark" on Justia Law

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