Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

After the mother of nine-year-old N.S. and five-year-old J.S. admitted to using methamphetamine, the juvenile court filed an order adjudicating N.S. and J.S. children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code 232.2(6)(a), (b), and (c)(2). A dispositional hearing was subsequently held, and N.S. and J.S. were placed with their paternal grandmother. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the children should be adjudicated CINA under section 232.2(6)(b). The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the order of the juvenile court finding N.S. and J.S. to be CINA under section 232.2(6)(b), holding that a parent’s status as a methamphetamine addict, without more, is not sufficient to establish an imminent likelihood of physical injury to a child under the statute. View "In re Interest of J.S." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a mother who serves as the guardian for her intellectually disabled adult son must obtain court approval before arranging a vasectomy for him. Maria Kennedy was the legal guardian of Stuart Kennedy, a twenty-one-year-old man with intellectual disabilities who lived in a group home. In 2013, Stuart filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. Maria, in turn, petitioned for appointment of an involuntary conservator for Stuart. Concerned that Stuart was having sex with his coworker, Maria took Stuart to the doctor’s office to get a vasectomy. Stuart’s attorney subsequently filed a further petition to terminate or modify the guardianship because Maria had forced Stuart to undergo sterilization. After a combined hearing on the petitions, the probate court (1) declined to terminate Stuart’s guardianship, (2) found Maria did not violate Iowa Code 633.635(2)(b) by arranging for Stuart’s vasectomy without court approval, and (3) ordered Maria’s appointment as Stuart’s conservator. The Supreme Court (1) held that section 633.635(2) required Maria to get prior court approval for Stuart’s vasectomy; but (2) affirmed the guardianship and conservatorship orders entered by the probate court. View "In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Kennedy" on Justia Law

Travis and Alfronia Sisson divorced in 2008. The next year, Alfornia was diagnosed with an incurable blood cancer. In 2011, Travis filed an action to modify the divorce decree, and Alfronia responded with her own claim for modification. The district court (1) denied Travis’s request to modify the custody arrangement; (2) modified alimony by increasing the monthly amount, retroactive to the date Alfronia filed her application to modify; (3) extended the spousal support payments for the remainder of Alfronia’s life; and (4) ordered Travis to pay one-half of the medical expenses incurred by Alfronia not covered by her insurance plan. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that Alfronia established a change in circumstances to support a modification of spousal support. View "In re Marriage of Sisson" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the parents of A.M. Following A.M.’s birth, the hospital staff expressed concerns about the couple’s ability to care for A.M. due to Mother’s lack of interest in feeding the baby and Father’s “ability to safely hold and care for the baby." Two days after A.M.’s birth, the juvenile court granted the State’s request for the temporary removal of A.M. from Mother and Father’s custody. The juvenile court adjudicated A.M. a child in need of assistance, and the Department of Human Services developed a case permanency plan with the goal for A.M. to be returned to Mother’s home. The State later filed a petition for the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to A.M. After a trial, the juvenile court terminated parental rights to A.M. The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order after noting that this “was a difficult case,” holding that termination was in A.M.’s best interests. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law

Melissa and Scott Mihm entered into a stipulation and agreement for dissolution of their marriage. The stipulation included an agreement to a child support amount below what was provided by the child support guidelines (the guidelines). The district court incorporated the stipulation into its decree of dissolution. Scott later filed a motion to modify the divorce decree, and Melissa counterclaimed seeking an increase in child support. The district court concluded (1) there had been no substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification of Scott’s child support obligation, and (2) the agreement, which was made by the parties with full knowledge that the child support was not based upon the guidelines, should not be modified unless “for the direst of needs.” The Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the issue of child support, holding (1) the original child support order did not provide a proper basis on which to base a decision on modification of child support because it was not consistent with law or rules governing child support; and (2) Melissa showed there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the underlying decree, warranting a child support modification. View "In re Marriage of Mihm" on Justia Law

In an underlying termination of parental rights proceeding, the juvenile court concluded that while Mother, who was indigent, did not qualify for appointed counsel under Iowa Code 600A.6A, payment of the attorney’s fees at public expense was constitutionally required. The court subsequently appointed an attorney to represent Mother in the proceeding, and ultimately, Mother’s parental rights were terminated. The juvenile court ordered the State Public Defender to pay for the court-appointed counsel, but the Defender denied payment on the ground that the fees did not qualify for payment from the indigent defense fund. The appointed attorney sought judicial review, and the juvenile court subsequently ordered the Iowa Department of Management to pay the fees. The Defender and Department appealed the juvenile court’s appointment of counsel at public expense. The Supreme Court treated the appeal as a petition for an original writ of certiorari, which it granted as to the Department. The Court then annulled the writ, concluding that the juvenile court correctly appointed counsel at public expense to represent Mother in the contested termination proceeding under chapter 600A. View "Crowell v. State Pub. Defender" on Justia Law

Plaintiff fled her home in Decatur County to escape Defendant, her abusive husband. Plaintiff found a safe house in Howard County and filed for an order of protection within two days of her arrival. After Defendant unsuccessfully moved to transfer venue from Howard County to Decatur County, the trial court entered the protective order. Defendant filed his notice of appeal thirty-one days later, as the county clerk's public window had closed at 2:30 p.m. the previous day pursuant to a order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the venue ruling and protective order entered by the district court, holding (1) the court order closing the clerk of the court's public window at 2:30 p.m. triggered Iowa Code 4.1(34) to allow a one-day extension of the deadline to file a notice of appeal; and (2) Plaintiff satisfied the residency requirement for venue under Iowa Code 236.3(1) to obtain a domestic abuse protective order in Howard County. View "Root v. Toney" on Justia Law

Kenneth and Melissa were married for over twenty years when they sought a divorce in 1994. In 2011, Kenneth filed a second petition for modification, requesting termination or reduction of his weekly spousal support and monthly medical insurance payments to Melissa. After a modification trial, the district court modified the decree to (1) require that Kenneth, instead of making weekly support payments indefinitely, continue making weekly payments until he reached the age of sixty-seven, or until Melissa remarried, or until either party died; and (2) eliminate the requirement that Kenneth subsidize Melissa's monthly health insurance premium. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment as modified and (1) reduced Kenneth's obligation to pay weekly spousal support; and (2) terminated Kenneth's monthly obligation to contribute to the cost of Melissa's health insurance. View "In re Marriage of Michael" on Justia Law

After a trial, Angela and Patric were divorced pursuant to a dissolution decree that awarded the parties joint legal custody and joint physical care of the parties' two children. Angela appealed, arguing that the district court erred in failing to grant her motion for continuance and in ordering joint physical care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Angela's motion to continue under the circumstances presented in this case, and (2) awarding joint physical care based on the court's finding that joint physical care was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Marriage of Harris" on Justia Law

Melissa and Heather Gartner were a married lesbian couple. Heather conceived a child using an anonymous sperm donor. The child was born during the spouses' marriage. The Gartners requested a birth certificate recognizing both Heather and Melissa as the child's parents. The Department of Public Health refused to place the name of the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage on the birth certificate without the spouse first adopting the child. The district court ordered the Department to issue the Gartners a birth certificate listing both spouses as parents but did not require the Department to extend the same practice to other married lesbian couples. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Iowa Code 144.13(2), Iowa's presumption of parentage statute, violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution because it allows for only "the name of the husband" to appear on the birth certificate; and (2) accordingly, the Department must presumptively list on a child's birth certificate the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage when the child was born to one of the spouses during their marriage. View "Gartner v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health" on Justia Law