Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Father was the biological father of three sons and one daughter and the stepfather of two stepdaughters. Upon allegations that Father raped one of his stepdaughters, the children were taken into the custody of the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS subsequently filed a petition alleging that the children were abused or neglected. Ultimately, the circuit court terminated Father's parental rights to all of his biological children. Father appealed, arguing that DSS did not make active efforts to reunite the Indian family and that termination of his parental rights was not the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based upon the circumstances, DSS actively attempted to reunify the family, but those efforts were unsuccessful; and (2) the circuit court did not err in finding that the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the best interests of the children was termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re Interest of S.H.E." on Justia Law

In this custody dispute between the non-married parents of two minor children, the maternal grandparents were permitted to join/intervene. After a trial, the circuit court awarded legal and physical custody to the grandparents and visitation to the father. The father appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grandparents' joinder/intervention, as the grandparents made a sufficient showing for joinder/intervention; (2) reversed the custody award, holding that the circuit court erred in awarding the grandparents custody because the grandparents did not meet their evidentiary burden, and the Court could not consider the court's findings regarding the best interests of the children; and (3) remanded for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reconsideration of the issue of attorney's fees. View "Veldheer v. Peterson" on Justia Law

After the parties' divorce, Appellee filed a petition for a domestic abuse protection order from Appellant. The trial court granted the protection order for one year and excluded Appellant from Appellee's residence and from coming within 300 feet of her and her daughter. The order further excluded Appellant from the high school and Boys and Girls Club. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) at the hearing on this matter, the trial court improperly restricted Appellant's cross-examination of Appellee on any issues of domestic violence beyond Appellant's e-mails; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law with sufficient specificity to permit the Court to meaningfully review whether the protection order was appropriately granted. View "Castano v. Ishol" on Justia Law

Daniel Huffaker and Jeffrey Huffaker were granted a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences. The trial court awarded Danielle primary physical custody of the parties' three minor children and ordered Jeffrey to pay Danielle $1,310 per month as child support. The trial court also distributed the marital property and ordered the parties to pay their own attorney fees. Danielle appealed, arguing, in part, that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to value the marital property before distributing it and in failing to distribute the marital property equitably. The Supreme Court reversed on property valuation and distribution issues, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to assign values to the parties' property before distributing it; and (2) because the trial court failed to value the property and failed to articulate its rationale for the disproportionate property division, the Court was incapable of reviewing whether the trial court's division of property was equitable. Remanded. View "Huffaker v. Huffaker" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had a child out of wedlock. The parents had agreed that Mother would retain physical custody of the child and Father would exercise visitation for one week every other month. This arrangement continued until Father petitioned for a change of custody. The circuit court awarded joint legal custody to both parents and primary physical custody to Father. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding (1) Mother's mental health condition, when untreated, made her unable to care for the child; (2) Mother's relationships negatively impacted the child; (3) Father had developed a bond with the child and could meet the child's needs; and (4) Father's wife's relationship with the child was not inappropriate, harmful, or otherwise negative. Lastly, the court did not impose a higher burden on Mother to prove a substantial change in circumstances before she could receive custody. View "Benson v. Loffelmacher" on Justia Law

Bradley DeBoer sued Tara DeBoer for divorce. During the parties' marriage, the Texas Department of State Health Services issued an amended birth certificate naming Bradley as the father of Taiton, the child Tara had from a prior relationship. Tara counterclaimed for custody and support of Taiton. The circuit court granted Tara custody of Taiton but denied her request for child support. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court erred in concluding Bradley was not Taiton's presumed father under Texas law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 1260.207(a)(4), a rebuttable presumption of paternity arose because Bradley voluntarily asserted he was Taiton's biological father and the assertion was in a record filed with the bureau of vital statistics; (2) under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 160.607(b) the presumption of paternity was not rebutted; and (3) although Bradley was not Taiton's biological father, Bradley was Taiton's parent for purposes of child support. Remanded. View "DeBoer v. DeBoer" on Justia Law

Nicole and Michael Hagedorn were married for fifteen years and had two daughters. Nicole later filed for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The trial court granted Nicole a divorce on those grounds and awarded her alimony of $5,000 per month and attorney fees. Michael appealed the awards of alimony and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding to Nicole alimony in the amount of $5,000 per month for life; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding $14,419 in attorney fees to Nicole. View "Hagedorn v. Hagedorn" on Justia Law

The district court granted temporary custody of three Native American children to the department of social services. Citing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (Tribe) contested the custody order by challenging the oldest child's temporary placement and questioning the lack of adherence to relative placement preferences under the ICWA. The court advised that ICWA placement preferences were not yet applicable. The Tribe filed an application for a writ of mandamus or prohibition from the Supreme Court to compel a new temporary custody hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the Tribe's application for an extraordinary writ, holding that the trial court was not obligated to follow ICWA at temporary or emergency custody proceedings under state law, and therefore, the trial court appropriately rejected the Tribe's invocation of ICWA and requests for a new temporary custody hearing conducted in full accord with ICWA. View "Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. Judicial Court (Davis)" on Justia Law

A father petitioned to modify his child support obligation, requesting that his future payments be reduced to account for overpayments he made after his two eldest sons graduated from high school and reached the age of majority. Concluding that this request would result in a retroactive modification of child support in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 25-7-7.3, the referee denied any reduction for amounts overpaid before the petition was filed. The circuit court adopted the referee's report. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err when it interpreted section 25-7-7.3 to prohibit retroactive reduction of the father's future support obligation to account for his overpayments. View "Heumiller v. Heumiller " on Justia Law

Arla Johnson deeded farmland to her daughter Linda, and son-in-law, Claude Miller. Linda subsequently filed for divorce from Claude. Arla then sued Claude, claiming she was fraudulently induced by him into deeding the land. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Claude. Claude appealed the denial of his motion for attorney’s fees. On appeal, Claude argued Arla's suit was malicious and frivolous, and therefore when the trial court ruled in his favor, he was entitled to attorney's fees. The Supreme Court deferred to the trial court's discretion when it decided the suit was not malicious or frivolous, and affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Johnson v. Miller" on Justia Law