Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Cassandra Goetz appealed a corrected amended judgment awarding her and Joshua Goetz equal residential responsibility of their minor children and awarding Joshua primary decision making responsibility. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined further findings were warranted. The Court remanded the case with instructions that the district court make specific findings regarding whether the material change in circumstances resulted in a general decline or adversely affected the children. View "Goetz v. Goetz, et al." on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to modify child support. He argued the district court erred when it applied the North Dakota Supreme Court’s vexatious litigant pre-filing order, when it allowed the State to file a response to his motion after the deadline, and when it denied his motion without a hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Rath v. Rath, et al." on Justia Law

Almost 15 months elapsed from the time the juvenile court found Petitioner K.R. incompetent to stand trial and referred him for remediation until the court determined that he had been restored to competency and reinstated the proceedings. K.R. remained in juvenile hall for that entire period. He filed a writ petition arguing that the court lost jurisdiction when it failed to make a final ruling on his competency by the one-year deadline for remediation services and was required to dismiss the case at that point. In the alternative, he argues the court erred by allowing the prosecution to employ its own expert to examine him and asks us to order the juvenile court to strike the expert’s testimony.   The Second Appellate District disagreed and denied the petition. The court held that although section 709 establishes a maximum period of one year of remediation, the juvenile court’s jurisdiction continues for a reasonable period afterward for the court to resolve any dispute still existing at the end of that period over whether the minor has attained competency. Even if this was not the case, section 709 permits a court to keep juveniles accused of certain serious offenses (including several with which K.R. was charged) in secure confinement past the one-year remediation period for conclusion of competency proceedings. The court also found that section 709 does not preclude the parties from seeking the appointment of their own expert(s) after the initial competency hearing. View "K.R. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

A child was removed from his mother and placed with his grandparents out of concern that she could not care for him. Years later, the State sought to terminate that mother’s parental rights. On advice of counsel, she declined to answer questions related to her recent drug use. The trial judge chose to draw a negative inference from her assertion of that right. The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s review centered on whether, under the Fifth Amendment, that was permissible. The Court stressed that such a negative inference could not be the only evidence supporting termination. Here, the Supreme Court concluded the trial coud did not err by drawing a negative inference from the mother’s refusal to answer specific questions about her drug use. View "In re Dependency of A.M.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the ruling of the circuit court that it lacked the authority to amend the Military Pension Division Order (MPDO) it issued earlier memorializing the parties' negotiated agreement regarding the division of Defendant's military retirement pay, holding that the court of appeals erred.After the final decree was entered in this case, Husband moved to amend the final decree, the equitable distribution order, and the MPDO. The circuit court dismissed the motion on the ground that the court had no authority to amend the MPDO because more than twenty-one days had passed since the order was entered. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that federal law preempted Virginia law on questions involving the divisibility of military retirement benefits. The Supreme Court adopted the holding of the court of appeals in Owen v. Owen, 14 Va. App. 623 (1992), with regard to the division of military retirement benefits and reversed, holding that federal law did not bar the parties' in this case from upholding the MPDO. View "Yourko v. Yourko" on Justia Law

While their marriage dissolution proceeding was pending in Virginia, David and Joanna filed dueling requests for domestic violence restraining orders in Marin County Superior Court under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), Family Code section 6200. After a trial, the family court found both parties had committed domestic violence and issued mutual restraining orders. The court also found that Joanna had obtained orders temporarily excluding David from his residence under false pretenses, and then damaged and confiscated substantial amounts of David’s property, so it conducted a second hearing on restitution and issued a substantial award.The court of appeal affirmed. The court rejected Joanna’s arguments that the restraining order did not include findings, required by section 6305(a)(2), to support mutual restraining orders; that the court exceeded its authority under section 6342 in awarding restitution for confiscated items; that the court’s decisions were driven by bias (in violation of Joanna’s right to due process) and a lack of “informed discretion”; and that the court intruded on the jurisdiction of the Virginia court presiding over the parties’ dissolution case and failed to accord “full faith and credit” to its orders. She also, unsuccessfully, asserted that certain findings are not supported by substantial evidence, View "Rivera v. Hillard" on Justia Law

In October 2016, the mother filed a request to reinstate joint legal and physical custody of her minor daughter, after a lengthy period in which the father exercised sole legal and physical custody based on a child welfare referral that, according to the mother, had recently been “overturned.” The parents had a long-running custody battle. In May 2019, she was ordered to share in the expense of a court-ordered child custody evaluator who was appointed under Evidence Code section 730. The payment order was entered over the mother’s continuing objection that she cannot afford to pay any of the evaluator’s fees. She argued that, given her financial condition, the court erred when it reallocated a portion of that expense to her after the fact.The court of appeal remanded, In allocating the costs of a court-appointed child custody evaluator, the court must consider the parties’ ability to pay, whether the child custody evaluator is appointed by the court under Evidence Code section 730 or the more specific provisions of the Family Code (sections 3111-3112). The record does not indicate that the trial court considered all of the mother’s expenses before ordering her to contribute to the costs. View "Peterson v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court refusing to adjudicate Father as an abusive and neglectful parent and remanded the case, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Father did not abandon Child.Father was identified as the father of Child, who was removed from the home of his mother because of drug use and other conditions, and the pending abuse and neglect petition was amended to add him as an alleged neglectful parent. The circuit court declined to make a finding of abandonment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence showed that Father demonstrated a settled purpose to forgo his responsibilities and duties to Child and thus abandoned him. View "In re C.M.-1" on Justia Law

Mother appealed the family division’s order transferring custody of thirteen-year-old Z.P. to father, who was previously the noncustodial parent. In 2020, Z.P. was adjudicated a child in need of care or supervision, for which a case plan was approved with the goal of reunification with mother, who had been the sole custodial parent. Department for Children and Families (DCF) placed Z.P. with his maternal grandmother. In November 2021, DCF determined that it could not fully license grandmother as a foster parent and indicated that it planned to move Z.P. to a different placement. Z.P. and mother moved jointly for a conditional custody order (CCO) transferring custody to grandmother. The State opposed the request. After a hearing, the family division granted the motion in December 2021, but stated that this was a “close call” and indicated that it would reconsider its decision if grandmother failed to work with DCF to exercise protective supervision of Z.P. After a hearing, however, the court found that mother had failed to engage in any aspect of the case plan and lacked insight into the reasons Z.P. was in DCF custody. Further, the Court found that over the course of the case, father had shown that he was committed to caring for Z.P. and was able to do so. Z.P. was accepted in father’s home and had become active and engaged with father’s family. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded the family division did not err in its findings that it was in Z.P.'s best interests to be placed with his father. View "In re Z.P." on Justia Law

Appellant M.B., mother of minor L.J., appealed the termination of her parental rights which freed L.J. for adoption. Mother contended the juvenile court erred by: (1) denying her request to admit self-made recordings of her visits with the minor to support her argument that the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (c)(1)(B)(i) beneficial parental relationship exception applied and to impeach the evidence of the visits; and (2) finding the beneficial parental relationship exception did not apply to prevent the termination of parental rights. The Court of Appeal concluded after review that the juvenile court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record and the court did not abuse its discretion in finding no detriment to termination of parental rights. View "In re L.J." on Justia Law