Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The State of Oklahoma sought to terminate the parental rights of Albert Parker, the natural father of J.O., a child who is a member of the Choctaw Nation. Parker was unaware of his paternity until genetic testing confirmed it in June 2022. The State filed a petition alleging that J.O. was deprived while in the mother's care, and the child was adjudicated deprived. Parker, who was incarcerated, had limited contact with J.O. and had not established a relationship with the child. The trial court terminated Parker's parental rights after a jury trial.The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that Parker's due process rights were violated and that the State was not required to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements. Both Parker and the State petitioned for certiorari review, which was granted.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and found that Parker's due process rights were indeed violated when the trial continued without his presence after his video feed was disconnected. The court also determined that the ICWA requirements apply in this case, regardless of whether Parker had a prior relationship with J.O. The court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded the case for a new trial, ensuring compliance with ICWA and OICWA provisions. View "In re J.O." on Justia Law

A woman and a man were married in July 2003 and separated in March 2022. Before their marriage, the woman had an employer-provided deferred compensation plan with a balance between $63,131.23 and $67,536.80. During the marriage, she continued contributing to the plan until 2006. She made significant withdrawals from the account for marital expenses, including $40,000 in 2009 and $75,000 in 2016. In 2018, the remaining funds were transferred to a USAA account and then to a Charles Schwab IRA account in 2020, which was valued at $102,100.55 at the time of trial. The parties disputed whether these funds were marital or nonmarital.The parties engaged in mediation in March 2022 and appeared before the superior court to memorialize their agreement. The court noted that the parties had agreed to allocate the assets and debts of the marriage with one exception related to the disputed account. The woman was to provide additional information to confirm that the marital portion of the account had already been spent. However, the parties had conflicting interpretations of this proviso, leading to further disputes.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court found that the superior court had erred in its legal conclusions. It ruled that the use of some funds for marital expenditures did not demonstrate an intent to donate the entire account to the marriage. Additionally, the court held that when a mixed account contains both premarital and marital funds, the default rule is "first in, last out," meaning premarital funds are not withdrawn until all marital funds have been exhausted. The court vacated the superior court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the respective separate and marital portions of the account. View "Rush v. Rush" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife married in 2012 and purchased a home in Cheyenne, Wyoming, in 2014. They shared the residence and paid the mortgage from a joint account. In 2021, they refinanced the home, and in December 2021, they separated. They discussed the division of their marital property without attorneys and obtained two appraisals for the home. Wife retained counsel to draft a stipulated divorce decree, which both parties signed. The decree awarded the home to Husband, with a provision that Wife would receive half the net proceeds if the home was sold or refinanced.The District Court of Laramie County granted the divorce and entered the Stipulated Decree in June 2022. Husband refinanced the home but did not pay Wife her share of the equity. Wife filed a motion for relief, claiming the decree entitled her to half the equity regardless of whether the home was sold or refinanced. The district court granted Wife relief under Rule 60, correcting the decree to reflect that any equity recognized through sale or refinance was to be equally divided.Husband appealed, and the Wyoming Supreme Court found the decree ambiguous and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The district court held a hearing and found that both parties intended to split the equity in the home equally. The court awarded Wife half the equity, amounting to $106,323.40, and Husband appealed again.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the clarification under Rule 60(a) was appropriate and did not modify the original judgment. The court also found that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient and supported by the record. View "Van Vlack v. Van Vlack" on Justia Law

Jennie Olson and Jonathan Olson were married on August 22, 2020. Two days before the wedding, Jonathan presented Jennie with a premarital agreement stipulating that in the event of a divorce, each party would retain ownership of their separate property. Jennie signed the agreement the same day. At the time, Jennie had a net worth of $386,917, while Jonathan had a net worth of $11,591,000. The couple separated in July 2022, and Jennie initiated divorce proceedings.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, bifurcated the trial, first addressing the validity of the premarital agreement. The court found the agreement valid and enforceable and determined that the parties had no marital property. Jennie appealed, arguing the district court erred in its findings and abused its discretion in allowing a rebuttal witness to testify and in not admitting a text message as evidence.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in finding the premarital agreement valid and enforceable. The court found that Jennie had access to independent legal representation, received adequate financial disclosure, voluntarily consented to the agreement, and that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the rebuttal witness to testify or in refusing to admit the text message as evidence.The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied both parties' requests for attorney’s fees and costs, citing the premarital agreement's provision that each party is responsible for their own legal expenses. View "Olson v. Olson" on Justia Law

The case involves the dissolution of a marriage between the plaintiff, K, and the defendant, R, with the intervenor, B, also involved due to a related New Jersey litigation. The key marital asset was the couple's home in Greenwich, Connecticut, valued at approximately $11 million, and several investment accounts. The defendant had previously pledged these assets as security in a New Jersey court case, which resulted in a $24.7 million judgment against him and his father. The New Jersey court ordered the forfeiture of the Greenwich property and imposed a constructive trust on the investment accounts due to the defendant's misconduct, including transferring $3 million to Slovakia.The Connecticut trial court found that the defendant had dissipated marital assets by pledging and forfeiting the Greenwich property and investment accounts. The court included these assets in the marital estate and ordered their sale, with proceeds to be divided among the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor. The court also found the defendant's annual earning capacity to be $400,000 and ordered him to pay $749 per week in child support, based on his earning capacity rather than actual income. Additionally, the court allowed the plaintiff to relocate with the children to the Czech Republic and granted her motion for contempt against the defendant for failing to support the family during the pendency of the dissolution action.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in failing to afford full faith and credit to the New Jersey court orders, which had removed the Greenwich property and investment accounts from the marital estate. The Supreme Court also found that the trial court improperly calculated child support by not first determining the presumptive amount based on the defendant's actual income. The court's granting of the plaintiff's motion for contempt was reversed due to a lack of clear and unambiguous orders requiring the defendant to provide the support he allegedly withheld. The case was remanded for a new hearing on all financial issues, including the division of the marital assets, giving full faith and credit to the New Jersey court orders. View "K. S. v. R. S." on Justia Law

The case involves an ex-wife, Stephanie P. Shilling, attempting to enforce an agreement with her ex-husband, Ebon T. Shilling, regarding the sale of her interest in a property acquired during their marriage. The ex-husband offered to purchase the ex-wife's interest via email, and she accepted the offer. However, the Family Court found that the email exchanges did not result in an enforceable contract because the parties did not adequately manifest their intent to be bound and the exchanges did not contain all material contractual terms.The Family Court of the State of Delaware previously reviewed the case. The court found that there was no enforceable contract between the parties because the email exchanges lacked a meeting of the minds and did not include all material terms. Additionally, the court concluded that signing a formal written agreement was a condition precedent to the contract, and even if there was a contract, the ex-wife acquiesced in the ex-husband's repudiation by continuing to negotiate.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case and disagreed with the Family Court's findings. The Supreme Court found that the email exchanges did form an enforceable contract as they contained a clear offer and acceptance, and the parties intended to be bound by the terms discussed in the emails. The court also determined that the signing of a formal written agreement was not a condition precedent to the contract. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the ex-wife did not acquiesce in the ex-husband's repudiation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Family Court's judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine appropriate relief in light of the enforceable contract. View "Shilling v. Shilling" on Justia Law

Richard DuCharme and Jennifer Brick are the parents of two minor children, S.D. and B.D. Their dissolution began in 2017, and since then, Brick has repeatedly refused to honor court-ordered parenting time. In June 2023, after a dispute about summer parenting time, Brick emailed S.D. claiming her father was keeping the girls illegally. Brick's behavior escalated to physical violence when she grabbed S.D.'s hair and punched her. S.D. escaped and reported the incident to the Bozeman Public Safety Center. Brick was charged with Partner Family Member Assault, and DuCharme filed for a temporary order of protection for both children.The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, granted a temporary restraining order and later held a hearing where S.D. testified about ongoing emotional abuse and the physical assault. The court granted a two-year Order of Protection for S.D. and a six-month Order of Protection for B.D., which was later extended indefinitely due to Brick's violation of the order.Brick appealed, presenting eight issues, including judicial bias, legal entrapment, misuse of court orders, due process violations, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and erroneous sentencing. The Montana Supreme Court addressed three main categories: the Order of Protection, related proceedings, and judicial bias.The court found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Order of Protection based on the history of emotional and physical abuse. Brick's arguments related to criminal proceedings and the parenting matter were not considered as they were not properly before the court. The court also rejected Brick's claim of judicial bias, noting that adverse rulings alone do not constitute bias.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision. View "Ducharme v. Brick" on Justia Law

A man and woman who had been in a long-term domestic partnership ended their relationship and sought a distribution of partnership assets. Each initially disputed whether certain property items were part of the domestic partnership estate or owned separately by one of the parties. After prompting by the court, the parties stipulated to the value of many items and that the man would receive them. However, the stipulation did not clearly address whether those items were included in the partnership estate, and the court did not receive evidence to indicate whether or not the property items belonged to the man or the partnership. The court nonetheless treated the items as partnership property and awarded the items as the parties had agreed, resulting in a substantial equalization payment owed by the man to the woman. The man appeals, asserting that two items of property were his separate property, not property of the partnership.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, initially reviewed the case. The court scheduled a two-day trial, which was later reduced to one day. During the trial, the parties discussed a property spreadsheet listing various items, their values, and proposed distributions. The court asked the man if he had reviewed the spreadsheet and if he agreed with its contents, to which he responded affirmatively. The court then proceeded to review each property item, noting changes on the spreadsheet and confirming agreements on valuations and assignments. The court ultimately concluded that all assets on the spreadsheet were partnership assets and available for distribution, resulting in an equalization payment owed by the man to the woman.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court found that the record did not support the conclusion that the man stipulated that the two disputed items were partnership property. The court noted that the property spreadsheets and the record did not reflect an agreement by the man that the items were part of the partnership estate. The court vacated the Superior Court's property distribution order and remanded for further proceedings to allow the parties to present evidence regarding the proper characterization of the disputed property items. View "Gallagher v. Majors" on Justia Law

Paul Martinez and Jennifer Martinez divorced in California in 2015, with Jennifer receiving primary physical custody of their child, L.M., due to Paul's health issues. Paul and Jennifer shared joint legal custody. After Jennifer moved to Nevada with L.M., Paul requested a custody evaluation, which resulted in maintaining the existing custody arrangement but with Paul entitled to visitation one weekend per month. The parties were to split transportation costs equally. In 2020, the custody matter was transferred to Nevada.The Nevada district court denied Paul's motion for primary physical custody and Jennifer's countermotion for supervised visitation, instead increasing Paul's visitation. The court ordered Jennifer to bear all transportation costs for L.M.'s visits to Paul, citing her relocation. Jennifer's motion to alter this determination was denied, leading her to appeal. The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, and Jennifer petitioned for review by the Nevada Supreme Court.The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that transportation costs must be considered as part of the overall child support determination under NAC 425.150. The court found that the district court erred by imposing all transportation costs on Jennifer without considering the parties' financial situations or the established child support obligations. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the order imposing transportation costs on Jennifer and remanded the matter for further proceedings to apply the NAC 425.150 framework. The court affirmed the district court's decision to modify visitation, finding no abuse of discretion and no violation of Jennifer's due process rights. View "Martinez v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Amanda Mitchell filed for a civil protection order against Nicholas Ramlow in October 2020, alleging that he was stalking her by tracking her movements and placing a tracking device on her car. The magistrate court issued a temporary ex parte protection order and scheduled a hearing. Due to COVID-19 mask mandates, Ramlow was denied entry to the courthouse for refusing to wear a mask, leading to the hearing being rescheduled. At the rescheduled hearing, Ramlow was again absent, and the magistrate court issued a one-year protection order requiring him to attend a 52-week domestic violence course and review hearings.Ramlow filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then appealed to the district court. The protection order was extended but expired before the district court heard the appeal. The district court requested supplemental briefing on mootness and ultimately dismissed the appeal as moot, finding no applicable exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Ramlow appealed the district court's decision, arguing that his appeal still presented justiciable issues and fell within exceptions to the mootness doctrine.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the appeal was moot because the protection order had expired, and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. The court found that the issues were too fact-specific to be capable of repetition yet evading review, there were no collateral legal consequences, and the case did not raise issues of substantial public interest. The court also declined to vacate the expired protection order and denied attorney fees to both parties, awarding costs to Mitchell as the prevailing party. View "Mitchell v. Ramlow" on Justia Law