Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County terminating a father's parental rights to his child. The father had been convicted of two felony violations, each involving a child victim. The father appealed the decision, arguing that his felony violations were not statutory grounds justifying the termination of his parental rights, that these grounds should be declared unconstitutional, and that there was insufficient evidence to declare him an unfit parent. However, the Supreme Court found that the father's first two arguments were not preserved for appeal and therefore declined to address them. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to terminate the father's parental rights, upholding the lower court's decision. The court found the termination was in the best interest of the child. View "In the Interest of: E.G. v. Juvenile Officer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal brought by A.S. and A.S. (together, Relatives) challenging the decision of the trial court to overrule their motion for a new trial following an adjudication hearing on the juvenile officer's neglect petition under Mo. Rev. Stat. 211.031, holding that Relatives lacked standing to appeal.After Child's motion consented to the termination of her parental rights, Relatives filed a petition seeking transfer of custody and adoption of Child. The court granted Relatives temporary custody. Later, the juvenile officer filed a petition alleging that the persons legally responsible for Child's care refused to provide the proper support necessary for Child's well being. After the court ordered that Child be placed in the temporary protective custody of the Children's Division the court found the facts set forth in the neglect petition were established by clear and convincing evidence and committed Child to the custody of the Children's Division for appropriate placement. Relatives appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Relatives had no statutory right to appeal. View "In re L.N.G.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment on the pleadings dismissing Wife's Rule 74.06(b) motion to set aside, for fraud, the judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Husband or, alternatively, the property division portion of the judgment, holding that the circuit court erred.Before the circuit court ruled on Wife's Rule 74.06(b) motion Husband died, and the personal representative of his estate was substituted as the respondent. The circuit court sustained the personal representative's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Wife's Rule 74.06(b) motion was moot because (1) Husband's death abated and rendered the motion moot, and (2) the relief sought in the motion could not be granted. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the circuit court erred in (1) finding that Husband's death abated the proceedings on Wife's Rule 74.06(b) motion; and (2) finding that meaningful relief was unavailable under Rule 74.06(b). View "Olofson v. Olofson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dissolving Wife's marriage to Husband and distributing the marital estate, holding that the circuit court did not err in awarding a marital 401(k) account of uncertain value to Husband.On appeal from the circuit court's apportionment of the marital estate, Wife argued that the circuit court legally erred and abused its discretion in awarding the 401(k) account to Husband in light of Husband's marital misconduct. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Wife did not carry her burden to show that the asset and debt division was unfair under the circumstances or that the circuit court committed reversible error. View "Lollar v. Lollar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court declaring section 11.800 of House Bill No. 2011 (HB2011) invalid, holding that there was a direct conflict between the language of Mo. Rev. Stat. 208.153.2 and 208.152.1(6), (12) requiring the MO HealthNet Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services to pay its authorized providers for covered physicians' services and family planning provided to Medicaid-eligible individuals and the language of section 11.800 prohibiting MO HealthNet from doing so.Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood (Planned Parenthood) was an authorized provider of physicians' services and family planning because it had an agreement with MO HealthNet to do so. MO HealthNet informed Planned Parenthood that it could not reimburse Planned Parenthood for those services during the fiscal year 2019 due to section 11.800, which stated that "No funds shall be expended to any abortion facility...." The circuit court concluded that section 11.800 of HB2011 violated Mo. Const. Art. III, 23 because it amended substantive law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 11.800 was invalid because article III, section 23 prohibits using an appropriation bill to amend a substantive statute; and (2) the circuit court properly severed that provision from the remainder of HB2011. View "Planned Parenthood of St. Louis Region v. Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court issued a permanent writ of prohibition ordering the circuit court to vacate its order sustaining Father's amended motion for temporary custody of his minor child and awarding Father temporary custody of the child without a hearing, holding that the circuit court exceeded its authority by awarding temporary custody without first conducting a hearing.After Mother filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Father the parties filed competing motions for temporary custody of their child. Without holding a hearing on the motions, the circuit court awarded temporary legal and physical custody of the child solely to Father. Mother filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, asserting that the circuit court acted in excess of its authority. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court exceeded its authority by awarding temporary custody without a hearing. View "State ex rel. Koehler v. Honorable Midkiff" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the preliminary writ issued in this original proceeding in prohibition brought by Husband seeking to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order compelling him to turn over all correspondence pertaining to his military retirement benefits and to sign an authorization releasing his military records related to reservist points he earned during his marriage to Wife, holding that Husband failed to establish that the circuit court exceeded its authority when it sustained Wife’s motion to compel.Specifically, the Court held (1) the circuit court’s order did not modify or otherwise grant Wife any relief from the division of property in the parties’ dissolution judgment, and therefore, the circuit court’s order was not governed by the one-year time limitation in Rule 74.06(c) and was not barred under the doctrines of collateral estoppel or res judicata; and (2) the circuit court’s order did not violate Husband’s due process rights or privacy rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. View "State ex rel. Cullen v. Honorable Kevin Harrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the final judgment of the trial court dissolving Husband’s marriage to Wife, holding that the trial court’s retroactive award of maintenance was erroneous but the judgment was otherwise proper.In 2013, the trial court entered an interlocutory judgment entry for dissolution of marriage dissolving the marriage, dividing marital property, and ordering Husband to pay Wife $1,500 per month in maintenance, retroactive to November 1, 2011. The interlocutory judgment was twice modified by the court. On April 16, 2016, the trial court entered its final judgment entry and dissolution of marriage dividing the remainder of the parties’ property and awarding maintenance in accordance with its interlocutory judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) the need for and amount of maintenance was erroneously determined prior to the final disposition of property, but the error was not material because the final division of property did not make any significant change in the award of property to the parties; (2) the trial court did not misapply the law in determining the need for and amount of maintenance; but (3) a retroactive maintenance award is not authorized under Mo. Rev. Stat. 452.335. View "Archdekin v. Archdekin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dissolving the marriage of Jessica Bowers and Jason Bowers and designating Jason a third party in the dissolution proceeding for purposes of determining custody of Child.The circuit court awarded Jason sole legal and physical custody of Child, finding that it would not be in Child’s best interest for Jessica or Child’s biological father to have sole physical or legal custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in designating Jason as a third party in the dissolution action for the sole purpose of determining custody even where Jason was already a party to the dissolution; and (2) the circuit court’s award of third-party custody to Jason was not against the weight of the evidence. View "Bowers v. Bowers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her twin girls and approving the adoption of the twins by their foster parents, holding that clear, cogent and convincing evidence supported the circuit court’s termination of parental rights under Mo. Rev. Stat. 211.447.5(2). On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that grounds for termination under section 211.447 were satisfied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother’s consent to the adoption was not needed where, as in this case, one of the grounds for termination under section 211.447 was satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. View "In re T.T.G." on Justia Law