Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

When Father and Mother initially divorced they had joint legal and physical custody of their minor child. The trial court subsequently granted an agreed order giving primary physical custody to Father. The parties continued to share joint legal custody. Later, Mother filed a petition for modification of custody and a verified motion for rule to show cause why Father should not be held in contempt for not complying with the court’s legal custody order. The trial court denied both of Mother’s requests. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) some of the trial court findings regarding the custody issue were erroneous, and (2) Father was in contempt for making unilateral decisions about the child’s education and by not sharing information with Mother. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Mother’s motions for custody modification and for contempt, as there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that a custody modification was not in the child’s best interests and that Father’s failure to abide by the court’s legal custody order was not willful. View "Steele-Giri v. Steele" on Justia Law

The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their daughter, determining that there was a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the child’s removal will not be remedied and that termination is in the child’s best interests. Father appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s determinations that the conditions that led to the child’s placement outside of the home will not be remedied; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion that termination was in the child’s best interests. View "A.A. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs." on Justia Law

Wife and Husband divorced in 2007. Husband later filed a motion to modify spousal maintenance, arguing that maintenance should be revoked entirely because of Wife’s remarriage. The trial court denied Husband’s petition and ordered him to pay Wife’s attorney fees. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Wife’s marriage to “a man of significant means” constituted a substantial change in her ability to support herself. The Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court, holding (1) the trial court’s findings supported its judgment that Wife’s finances had not changed so substantially that revocation of maintenance was warranted; and (2) because the trial court’s award of maintenance is affirmed, so likewise is its award of attorney fees. View "Gertiser v. Stokes" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife signed an agreement to arbitrate the issues in their divorce under the Family Law Arbitration Act (FLAA). The family law arbitrator entered conclusions of law providing for legal and physical custody of the parties’ child to be granted to Wife, Husband to pay certain child support obligation, the division of the marital property, Husband to pay certain spousal maintenance costs, and Husband to pay $95,000 of Wife’s attorney’s fees. The trial court entered judgment in accordance with the arbitrator’s decision. Husband appealed the arbitrator’s attorney fee award. Wife cross-appealed other issues. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in the appellate consideration of an FLAA award, the proper standard of review is the same standard of appellate review that applies to the review of trial court decisions in marriage dissolution cases; and (2) in this case, the family law arbitrator’s award satisfies that standard, and Husband failed to establish that the award of attorney’s fees is not supported by the arbitrator’s findings. View "Masters v. Masters" on Justia Law