Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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.

Appellant is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States illegally in 2003. He married Jane Doe (Mother) in Payette, Idaho. After they were married, Appellant was arrested in 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 to be held for deportation. He agreed to voluntarily leave the United States and did so, returning to his parents' home in 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 2009, Mother and her boyfriend took the boyfriend's son to the hospital regarding severe bruising on his head. Because Mother and the boyfriend gave conflicting accounts of how the child was injured, medical personnel called law enforcement. The two were arrested, and the State initiated proceedings for care of the children in Mother's custody. The petition alleged the daughter's father was unknown, in Mexico, at an unknown address. Appellant spoke by telephone from Mexico with a State caseworker, expressing his wish to be reunited with Mother and his daughter. When informed that Mother was not adhering to the plan, Appellant attempted to have his daughter moved to Mexico so that he may care for her. For the next year, there was a breakdown in communications between Appellant and the state caseworker. The State decided to initiate termination proceedings against Appellant. A default judgment was entered against him and his parental rights to his daughter were terminated. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the magistrate's finding that Appellant "made no attempt to establish a relationship by the means that were available to him" was "absurd." The Court found the magistrate's decisions with regard to the child "clearly erroneous," and reversed the lower court's decision. The Court remanded the case with instructions for the State to make all reasonable steps to promptly place the daughter with Appellant in Mexico.

When "Child" was three years and seven months old, his Mother was arrested while Child was in her care. Since Father was already incarcerated, the state declared Child to be in imminent danger. Child was placed in the the Department of Health and Welfare's custody, and a child protection case was initiated. The matter proceeded to trial, after which the trial court granted the Department's petition to terminate Father-Petitioner John Doe's parental rights. Father appealed. Finding clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father's parental rights were in Child's best interests, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate.

Jane Doe appealed the termination of her parental rights with regard to her son, John Doe, contending that the magistrate court failed to properly consider her improved participation in mental health and family counseling services. Because there was substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate court's final Judgment that termination of Jane Doe's parental rights was in John's best interests, the magistrate court did not err in terminating her parental rights.

John Doe (Father) and Jane Doe (Mother) appeal from an order terminating their parental rights. The two appellants have three children together, and Mother has an additional child with another man. The magistrate terminated the parental rights of both parents as to all children, holding that both Father and Mother neglected the children and that termination was in the children’s best interest. In 2009, Mother was arrested for possession of methamphetamine. The arresting officer declared all four children in imminent danger and took them into protective custody. The children have been in State custody ever since. In June 2010, the State petitioned for termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights. The State's petition contended that both Mother and Father neglected the children: Mother, because she failed to complete a scheduled child protective case plan; Father, because he was incarcerated and unable to provide for the children. Mother stipulated "that she had put forth very little, if any, effort to comply with the … case plan prior to the time the State filed its petition to terminate her parental rights in this matter." In its memorandum decision, the court weighed the trial evidence and ultimately determined that Father and Mother neglected their children and that termination of their parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Both parents timely appealed. Upon review, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether there was substantial, competent evidence to support the magistrate judge's decision to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights, and whether, as Mother argued, the State was estopped from seeking to terminate her rights. Because there was substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings that the children were neglected and that termination of his rights was in their best interest, the Supreme Court "[would] not disturb those findings."