Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Unhappy with a Virginia court’s order regarding the custody of his minor daughter, appellant Paul Fishbein sought to modify that order only one month later in California family court. When the California court found it lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to do so, Fishbein appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded the California court was correct: the Virginia court that entered the governing child custody order had initial home state jurisdiction, and it never lost that jurisdiction. View "Segal v. Fishbein" 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

Jeremiah Sullivan, III, appeals a stipulated judgment of dissolution of marriage. He challenged a 2018 order that was incorporated into the stipulated judgment, in which the family court found that it lacked jurisdiction to divide his ex-wife Lisa Sullivan’s military pension under the Federal Uniformed Services Former Spouse’s Protection Act (FUSFSPA). Jeremiah argued the court erred because Lisa “consent[ed] to the jurisdiction of the Court.” The Court of Appeal concluded the stipulated judgment was not appealable because it did not resolve all issues between the parties. At the parties’ joint request, however, the appellate court exercised its discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. On the merits, it rejected the trial court’s ruling that a service member had to explicitly and specifically consent to the court’s authority to divide her military retirement under the FUSFSPA. Furthermore, the Court concluded Lisa did consent to the jurisdiction of the court within the meaning of the FUSFSPA by voluntarily filing her dissolution petition in California, seeking a judicial confirmation of “all” her separate property acquired before marriage, asking the court to determine “any” community property assets, and requesting the appointment of an expert under California Evidence Code section 730 to determine a proposed division of the parties’ retirement accounts. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal granted appropriate writ relief directing the family court to vacate the stipulated judgment and the relevant portion of the 2018 order. View "Marriage of Sullivan" on Justia Law

After Richard Cohen (Richard) filed a request to modify his child support and spousal support obligations, Lauralin Anderson Cohen (Lauralin) moved to dismiss Richard’s motion under the disentitlement doctrine as Richard was delinquent on his support obligations. The trial court granted Lauralin’s motion and on its own, conditioned the filing of any future modification requests on Richard being current on his support obligations. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Lauralin’s motion to dismiss, but erred in conditioning the filing of future modification requests on Richard being current on his support obligations. View "Marriage of Cohen" on Justia Law

In August 2020, police went to a motel room to investigate child abuse. Three children were present: K.H. (an eight-year-old boy), A.H. (a five-year-old girl), and P.A. (an 18-month-old girl). The boy had visible bruises on his face and arms; the older girl had multiple bruises on her legs. Police arrested S.A. (“Mother”), and A.A. (“Husband” and father of the younger girl), who had brought the three children from Texas to California about three weeks prior. At that time, A.H. (“Father” of the two older children) was incarcerated in Texas for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The children were taken into protective custody. The next day, Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a dependency petition, and the juvenile court took “emergency jurisdiction . . . pursuant to UCCJEA.” About a week later, the court phoned a Texas state court judge who “cede[d] jurisdiction to the state of California.” SSA placed the children in foster care with Dana C. (“Caregiver”). Mother pleaded guilty to two counts of child abuse, served a 120-day jail sentence, and returned to Texas. Husband’s disposition and whereabouts were unknown. Father was no longer incarcerated and lived in Texas. In March 2021, the juvenile court sustained the dependency petition, declaring the children to be dependents of the court. Six months later, Mother moved to transfer the matter to Texas. In July 2022, the juvenile court again spoke to a Texas judge and found the state continued to decline to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Father appealed, contending the California juvenile court never had subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and all the juvenile court’s orders had to be reversed. The Court of Appeal denied the parents' requests, finding substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's ruling. View "A.H. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Mother appealed a trial court’s determination that C.C. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS). She argued that the court erred in admitting certain hearsay statements by C.C. concerning alleged sexual abuse by mother’s boyfriend. The Vermont Supreme Court did not reach mother’s arguments because, even excluding this evidence, the court’s decision was amply supported by its remaining findings. Therefore, judgment was affirmed. View "In re C.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests.After Mother and Father, the parents of three children, were divorced, Father received full legal and physical custody of the children. Mother later filed a complaint for modification of custody or parenting plan, alleging that Father had not complied with the divorce decree. Father filed a responsive pleading requesting termination of Mother's parental rights. The trial court found that, as to all three children, Father presented sufficient evidence to support three of the alleged statutory grounds for termination and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was not clear and convincing evidence that terminating Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "Benjamin S. v. Crystal S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the decision of the court of appeals applying the active appreciation rule to agricultural land in a marital property division, holding that the rule applies to such land.After the district court divided the marital estate Wife appealed, challenging the district court's classification, valuation, and division of the marital estate. The court of appeals reversed the district court's determinations regarding five parcels of land, determining that the active appreciation rule applies to farmland. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the court of appeals properly applied the active appreciation rule to agricultural land; and (2) the court of appeals' decision is modified to decrease the marital value of one parcel by $20,000. View "Parde v. Parde" on Justia Law

John and Sandra Davis, then-married, had two children in the 1980s. In 2018, John discovered the possibility that the children were not biologically his, but that they may have been the biological result of Sandra’s extramarital relations with Porter Horgan. Almost immediately after discovering this possibility, John sued Sandra and Horgan for fraud, alienation of affection, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury ultimately awarded John $700,000 in damages. Because some of the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and because John completely failed to request proper jury instructions on damages, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of Sandra and Horgan on John’s claims against them. View "Davis, et al. v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Grandparents' petition for visitation after concluding that one of the parents provided them with reasonable visitation, holding that the district court properly denied the petition for visitation.On appeal, Grandparents argued that the requirement set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.050 that "a parent of the child has denied or unreasonably restricted visits with the child" was satisfied in this case because one parent denied them visitation entirely and that the district court's finding that the visitation they received was reasonable was incorrect. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Grandparents' visits with the children must have been denied or unreasonably restricted to warrant relief in a petition for visitation; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Grandparents' visits with the children in this case were not denied or unreasonably restricted. View "Ramos v. Franklin" on Justia Law