Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Child was born out of wedlock to Mother in 2005. Six years later, Sherman filed an amended complaint seeking to establish paternity both as an individual and behalf of Child as "next friend." Alternatively, Sherman asserted that Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1411 denied him due process and equal protection. The district court dismissed the amended complaint filed by Sherman as an individual as untimely and dismissed the amended complaint as to Sherman's filing as the next friend of Child, determining that suit may be brought on behalf of a child as next friend only when the child lacks a guardian. The court made no findings as to Sherman's constitutional claims. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's dismissal of Sherman's constitutional claims, holding that Sherman's complaint stated plausible due process and equal protection claims, and the factual allegations suggested the existence of the elements required to show both a due process and an equal protection violation; and (2) otherwise affirmed. View "Sherman T. v. Karen N." on Justia Law

After Plaintiff's former husband filed for dissolution, the parties reconciled and entered into two postmarital agreements specifying how their property would be divided in the event of a future dissolution. The district court approved the agreements and dismissed the dissolution proceeding. Plaintiff subsequently filed a second dissolution proceeding. On the advice of Defendants, certain attorneys and law firms, Plaintiff accepted a settlement proposal from her former husband based upon the postmarital agreements approved in the first dissolution action. The marriage was then dissolved. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Defendants were negligent in advising her to accept the settlement proposal. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that the actions of Defendants were not the proximate cause of any damage to Plaintiff, and even if Defendants breached the standard of care, Plaintiff could not have received a more favorable settlement in the second dissolution proceeding because the court was bound to enforce the order in the first dissolution proceeding under the doctrines of res judicata and judicial estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the judgment in the first proceeding had preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata. View "Young v. Govier & Milone, LLP" on Justia Law

Shawna was the biological mother of two girls and two boys, all of whom were under fifteen years old. After an amended petition was filed by the State, the juvenile court found that all four children were within Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) due to the faults and habits of Shawna and her husband and ordered the children to remain in the temporary care of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services for placement. Shawna challenged only the juvenile court's adjudication of her two sons, arguing that because the boys were not residing with her, they were not at risk of harm and did not fall within the meaning of section 435-247(3)(a). The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court pertaining to the two boys, holding that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an adjudication of the boys. View "In re Justine J." on Justia Law

In 1985, Husband and Wife obtained a certificate of marriage form from the county court and participated in a wedding ceremony officiated by the county judge. In 2012, Husband brought this declaratory judgment action asking the district court to declare that no marriage ever existed because the section of the certificate of marriage form entitled "return of marriage ceremony certificate" was not completed and was never filed with the bureau of vital statistics. The district court found that a valid marriage existed between Husband and Wife and awarded attorney fees to Wife. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that all statutory requirements were met in this case and that the marriage of Husband and Wife was valid. View "Vlach v. Vlach" on Justia Law

In 1996, the district court ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff child support. In 2006, the court issued a writ of execution against Defendant's unspecified property to satisfy the child support lien. However, Defendant had conveyed the property to his girlfriend by quitclaim deed. In 2008, Plaintiff filed a second praecipe for an execution on Defendant's property, seeking an execution sale of the property that Defendant had previously owned and alleging that when the quitclaim conveyances were made, the property was subject to her lien. The court ordered the sheriff to execute on the property, and the sheriff sold the property to Plaintiff. John McWilliams challenged the sale, alleging that when the court issued the writ of execution, he was the record owner, and therefore, the court could not order the sheriff to conduct the execution sale because the property was not titled in Defendant's name. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order confirming the sale, holding that the court lacked authority to order the sheriff to levy the writ on property in which Defendant, the judgment debtor, no longer had an interest, absent any finding that Defendant's transfer of the property was fraudulent. Remanded. View "Fox v . Whitbeck" on Justia Law

After the dissolution of her marriage to Father, Mother sought a modification of child custody and related matters. Father was personally served but defaulted. The district court first entered a default modification order. The court subsequently entered a second order vacating the first order based on the fact that Father was not given notice of the default hearing. Mother appealed, contending that the second order was an abuse of discretion. Father cross-appealed, challenging the first order. The Supreme Court dismissed Father's cross-appeal and affirmed the district court's order vacating the first order, holding (1) because the first order was a final order from which Father did not timely appeal, Father could not use his cross-appeal to attack it; and (2) precedent does not forbid a court from promptly vacating a default modification order for failure to comply with an approved local district court rule requiring notice of the motion for default. View "Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

The marriage of Mother and Father was dissolved by consent decree in 2010. The decree required Father to pay child support and to be responsible for half of the parties' child's extraordinary expenses. Father subsequently became unemployed and filed a petition to modify the decree. Following a hearing, the court reduced Father's child support obligation and responsibility for some expenses and left Father responsible for fifty percent of extraordinary expenses but modified the provision addressing these expenses to require Father to contribute only to the expenses of which he approved. The Supreme Court affirmed the modification of the parties' dissolution decree, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that it had power to modify the extraordinary expenses provision of the parties' divorce decree; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change in circumstances sufficient to reduce Father's child support and childcare contribution percentage; and (3) it was not an abuse of discretion to modify the extraordinary expenses provision to require Father's approval. View "Caniglia v. Caniglia" on Justia Law

Rylee, age sixteen, was nonverbal and autistic. A juvenile petition was filed because Rylee was excessively absent from school. The State placed no fault on Lisa, Rylee's mother. The juvenile court entered an order adjudicating Rylee as a child defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a). As part of the adjudication, Lisa was ordered to complete a pretreatment assessment and to sign releases of information to allow the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) an opportunity to access information from her therapist and treatment providers. Lisa appealed, challenging the reasonableness of the juvenile court's order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decision of the juvenile court ordering Lisa to submit to a pretreatment assessment and to sign releases of information to allow the DHHS to access her mental health information was unreasonable. Remanded. View "In re Interest of Rylee S." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced pursuant to a decree of dissolution that awarded joint legal and physical custody of their minor children. Father subsequently filed an amended complaint to modify the decree, seeking full custody of the children. The district court found in favor of Mother, declined to modify the parenting plan, and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Father's request for modification of custody; and (2) the court did not err when it observed that the issue of modifying the parenting plan was not properly before it. View "Watkins v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Mother and Father entered into a marital settlement agreement in 2007 that provided for joint legal custody of the children and stated that no child support was to be paid. The district court entered an order dissolving the married in 2008, and custody and visitation were ordered as provided in the agreement. Later in 2008, the district court found there had been a material change in circumstances and modified the decree, ordering Father to pay child support for the three children. Mother remarried in 2010. In 2011, Mother filed an application to modify the decree. The district court (1) granted Mother's request to remove the minor children to Alaska and awarded custody of the children to Mother, and (2) terminated Father's child support obligations because of the increased visitation expenses necessitated by the children's move to Alaska. The Supreme Court remanded the case because the district court's order did not include a worksheet showing the methodology utilized by the court in determining that the child support obligation should be terminated. View "Pearson v. Pearson" on Justia Law