Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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."

This case involved a custody dispute between Charles Hernandez, the biological father of two minor children, and Janice Ausburn, the children's maternal grandmother. In 2001, the children's mother Kerri left the children with her mother Janice because she was struggling with drug addiction. The children continued to live with Janice and she raised them without physical help from Charles or Kerri. Charles had no physical contact with the children between November 2002 and early 2008. Kerri continued to struggle with personal issues and had nothing to do with the children after turning them over to Janice. Despite acting as the children's primary custodian, Janice never petitioned a court for guardianship. In 2008, Charles and Kerri stipulated to a change in the custody arrangement, whereby Charles would have sole physical custody of the children and Kerri would have visitation each summer. The court entered a modification order based on the stipulation. The court was unaware that the children were actually residing with Janice when it entered the order. Janice was not made aware of either the stipulation or the order. Janice found out about the plan and kept the boys home from school on the day Charles was to take them. Janice then filed a separate action for custody. In the subsequent proceeding, the court considered whether Charles or Janice should be the children's primary custodian. The court ultimately granted Charles sole legal custody and Charles and Janice shared physical custody, with Charles having primary custody and Janice having custody for six weeks during the summers. The court based its decision largely on a court-ordered assessment prepared by a third-party evaluator. Charles appealed the magistrate court's decision to the district court. He did not challenge the magistrate judge's factual findings but, rather, argued the award of limited custodial rights to Janice violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order.

Jane and John Doe appealed a trial court's order that terminated their parental rights to Jane's four and John's two children on the grounds of neglect and in the best interests of the children. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare filed a petition to terminate the parties' parental rights due to the parents' failure to address substance abuse issues, home sanitation issues, their failure to maintain adequate income and their failure to keep the children safe. Upon review, the Supreme Court found substantive and competent evidence to support the trial court's decision. The Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Jane and John Doe's parental rights.

After conducting an informal custody trial and granting the parties' divorce, a magistrate judge awarded the parties joint legal custody of their two minor children. Primary physical custody was awarded to their father Respondent Jimmy Schneider, subject to visitation rights awarded to their mother, Appellant Dorothy Schneider. Mrs. Schneider appealed that decision arguing that the magistrate judge's findings that her use of medications affected her ability to parent. Furthermore, Mrs. Schneider argued the magistrate abused its discretion in ordering visitation for Mrs. Schneider on certain mornings in the father's home. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate judge's decisions. The Court affirmed the magistrate's award of primary physical custody to the father. However, the Court found the magistrate judge abused its discretion in granting Mrs. Schneider the right to care for the children in the father's home on certain mornings. The Court remanded the case back to the magistrate level for further proceedings on reasonable visitation.

Respondent John Doe appealed a magistrate court's judgment that terminated his parental rights to his three minor children. The magistrate court found that Respondent neglected his children by failing to provide them with proper parental care. The court found it to be in the children's best interests to terminate his parental rights because, though there was a bond between the father and children, the children needed a stable environment that the father could not provide. On appeal, the father challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented to support the termination of his parental rights. Upon careful consideration of the magistrate court record, the Supreme Court found substantial and competent evidence that the judgment was in the best interest of the children. The Court affirmed the magistrate court's judgment.

Plaintiff-Respondent Jeconiah Evans and Defendant-Appellant Jessica Sayler divorced in 2007. They agreed to a joint custody agreement for their two children. Ms. Sayler decided she would go to college and stipulated to a modification of the custody agreement that gave Mr. Evans primary custody of the children. The magistrate court amended the custody order. However, after moving to Washington State, Ms. Sayler did not go back to school and petitioned the court for another change in the custody agreement. The judge held that Ms. Saylerâs decision not to go to college did not constitute a "substantial, material and permanent change" that would warrant another change in custody for the "best interests of the children." On appeal to the Supreme Court, Ms. Sayler argued that the magistrate court abused its discretion by not modifying the custody order. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court. The Court found that the magistrate judgeâs analysis of Ms. Saylerâs case was consistent with state law, and supported by substantial and competent evidence and was "reached through an exercise of reason."