Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Kristina Toppenberg appealed a district court order that granted Zach Toppenberg’s motion to reduce his child support obligation. Zach was originally ordered to pay $1,814 per month based on an annual income of $103,200. In 2023, Zach moved to Arizona, earning $21 per hour at a construction company. He filed a motion to amend his child support obligation, providing his 2023 tax return and recent paystubs. The district court recalculated his income to $43,680 annually and reduced his child support to $875 per month.The district court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, granted Zach’s motion, finding his change in employment was not for the purpose of reducing his child support obligation. The court used his current earnings to calculate the new support amount. Kristina appealed, arguing the modification was inappropriate and the calculation was incorrect, citing unreported income and gifts from Zach’s parents.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decision to grant the motion to amend child support, finding no clear error in the determination that Zach’s employment change was not to reduce his obligation. However, the Supreme Court found the district court erred in not including $30,000 in gifts and $24,000 of unreported income in Zach’s gross income. The court held that these amounts should have been considered in calculating his net income for child support purposes.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s decision to amend the child support obligation but reversed and remanded the case for recalculation of Zach’s net income, including the omitted gifts and unreported income. View "Toppenberg v. Toppenberg" on Justia Law

The case involves siblings E.G., I.G., and K.G., who were found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court due to allegations of sexual abuse by their stepfather, Erick C. E.G., aged 11, reported the abuse after a school assembly on safety and boundaries. She disclosed that Erick C. had sexually abused her multiple times since she was six years old. E.G. provided detailed accounts of the abuse to her school counselor, police, and social workers. Despite initially denying the abuse to her mother, E.G. later recanted her allegations, claiming they were dreams influenced by movies her parents watched.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition alleging the children came under the court's jurisdiction due to Erick C.'s sexual abuse of E.G. and the risk it posed to her siblings. The juvenile court ordered the children released to their mother, with Erick C. required to stay away from E.G. During the investigation, E.G. recanted her allegations, influenced by family members who did not believe her and pressured her to change her story.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's findings, noting E.G.'s consistent and detailed reports of abuse to multiple individuals over time. The court determined that E.G.'s recantation lacked credibility due to family pressure and inconsistent reasons for recanting. The court upheld the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and the decision to declare the children dependents of the court, removing them from Erick C. and releasing them to their mother. The appeal by Erick C. was affirmed, and the court terminated jurisdiction with an exit order granting joint physical and legal custody to the parents. View "In re E.G." on Justia Law

James Michael Kahl (James) and Jennifer June Sperano (Jennifer) have a minor daughter, M.A.K., born in May 2019. James filed a dissolution and parenting plan action in January 2020, which continued as a parenting plan matter after the parties agreed they were never married. Initially residing in Gardiner, Montana, both parents moved to Red Lodge, Montana, before separating. Jennifer returned to Gardiner and filed her own petition for a parenting plan. The Park County District Court transferred the case to the Carbon County District Court.At a February 2020 hearing, James requested supervised visitation for Jennifer due to her alleged chemical dependency issues, while Jennifer requested primary custody and supervised visitation for James, citing his allegedly abusive behavior. The District Court denied both requests for supervised visitation and ordered alternating weekly custody. In fall 2024, with M.A.K. starting school, both parents requested amended parenting plans. The District Court found both Red Lodge and Gardiner suitable for M.A.K. and ultimately granted Jennifer primary custody during the school year, with James having alternating weekends and extended summer parenting time.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. James raised four issues on appeal: the admissibility of Judge Brenda R. Gilbert's testimony, the District Court's decision not to follow the Guardian Ad Litem's (GAL) recommendation, an alleged factual error regarding Jennifer's employment, and the workability of the parenting plan. The Court found no error in admitting Judge Gilbert's testimony, as she was not the presiding judge and provided relevant testimony. The Court also held that the District Court properly evaluated the GAL's recommendations and found substantial evidence supporting the District Court's findings regarding Jennifer's employment and the parenting plan's workability. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision. View "Marriage of: Kahl & Sperano" on Justia Law

A mother appealed the July 2024 orders of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, which awarded guardianship of her children, I.R.S. and M.W.A.H., to non-kinship, non-Native American foster parents. The children were removed from the mother's home due to her illicit drug use and associated safety concerns. I.R.S. is a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, triggering the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Department initially placed I.R.S. with the mother's sister (Aunt), but later removed him due to allegations of physical abuse. The mother did not object to the new placement at the time. M.W.A.H. was born in September 2022 and was also removed from the mother's custody due to her continued issues. Both children were placed with a non-kinship, non-Native American foster family.The District Court adjudicated both children as youths in need of care and extended temporary custody to the Department. The mother did not contest these adjudications. The Department later petitioned for guardianship, which the mother initially contested but later approved of the placement. However, she changed her mind multiple times during the proceedings. The Aunt filed a motion to intervene, asserting her right under ICWA, but later withdrew her motion and was deemed an "interested person."The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decisions. The court held that the mother was not denied her right to counsel, as she had stipulated to the adjudication and did not pursue a transfer to tribal court. The court also found that the District Court did not err in failing to treat the mother's questions about transferring her case to tribal court as a motion to transfer. Additionally, the court concluded that the District Court did not erroneously deny the Aunt's motion to intervene, as she withdrew her motion. Finally, the court held that the District Court correctly concluded that good cause existed to deviate from ICWA placement preferences, as the Department had made diligent efforts to find a suitable ICWA-preferred placement but found none. View "In re I.R.S. & M.W.A.H." on Justia Law

A married couple, with three young children, filed for divorce. The mother requested primary custody, pendente lite child support, and alimony, while the father requested primary custody and child support. A family magistrate found both parents capable of earning significant income and denied the mother's request for pendente lite child support and alimony, recommending shared custody and shared payment of the mortgage and utilities for the marital home.The Circuit Court for Howard County adopted the magistrate's recommendations and denied the mother's exceptions to the magistrate's report. The mother appealed, citing Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-303(3)(v), which allows appeals from interlocutory orders for the payment of money.The Appellate Court of Maryland dismissed the appeal, holding that an interlocutory order denying pendente lite child support and alimony is not appealable under CJ § 12-303(3)(v) because it does not direct the payment of money. The mother then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland for a writ of certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment, holding that CJ § 12-303(3)(v) authorizes appeals only from interlocutory orders that direct the payment of money, not from orders denying such requests. The Court concluded that the legislative history and case law support this interpretation, emphasizing that the statute's plain language does not permit appeals from orders denying the payment of money. View "Adelakun v. Adelakun" on Justia Law

Approximately two years after Jessica Silveira da Silva brought her minor son, A.R., to the United States, A.R.'s father, Edervaldo Rodrigues da Silva, initiated proceedings in federal court to return A.R. to Brazil under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Rodrigues proved that A.R. had been wrongfully removed, and Silveira invoked the "now settled" defense, arguing that A.R.'s extensive ties to the community in Lowell, Massachusetts, weighed against returning him to Brazil.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a three-day bench trial and ultimately concluded that A.R. was not settled in the United States. The court found that although A.R. had lived in Lowell for over two years, attended the same school, and had some family and community ties, these factors did not sufficiently demonstrate that A.R. was settled. The court ordered Silveira to return A.R. to Brazil.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's findings. The appellate court held that the district court erred in concluding that A.R. was not settled in the United States. The First Circuit found that the totality of the circumstances, including A.R.'s age, stable home environment, consistent school attendance, and community involvement, demonstrated that A.R. was indeed settled. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for the district court to decide whether to exercise its equitable discretion to order A.R.'s return to Brazil despite his settled status. View "Rodrigues da Silva v. Silveira da Silva" on Justia Law

In this case, Erica Hall and Nicholas Houser, who married in 2012 and have one minor child, sought an absolute divorce in 2020. They presented three agreements to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, including one that proposed no child support and waived arrears. The court rejected this agreement, stating it was not in the child's best interest and ordered Mr. Houser to pay child support and arrears to Ms. Hall, who was the primary custodian.The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court's decision, rejecting the parents' agreement regarding child support and upholding the award of child support and arrears. Both parties then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland for a writ of certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that parents cannot waive the issue of child support and arrears, even in a bilateral agreement, because child support is a legal obligation, and the right to receive it belongs to the child, not the parents. The court also held that a parent's fundamental right to determine the care, custody, and control of their children does not include the ability to waive child support, as it is a parental obligation, not a right. Therefore, lawfully ordered child support does not violate a parent's fundamental rights.Additionally, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the parents' agreement to pay no child support, as the parties failed to provide sufficient justification for their request. The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court, maintaining the child support order. View "In re Marriage of Houser" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Kelly O. Orgeron, sought a community property share of $16,949,000 in liquidated damages paid to her ex-husband, Edward J. Orgeron, Jr., upon the termination of his employment as a college football coach in 2021. The liquidated damages were a contractual benefit guaranteed by his employer, Louisiana State University (LSU), effective January 14, 2020, before the defendant filed for divorce on February 26, 2020. The agreements relevant to this case included a Binding Term Sheet, an Employment Agreement, and a Termination Agreement, all of which had provisions regarding liquidated damages upon termination without cause.The trial court did not award the plaintiff a share of the liquidated damages, interpreting the January 2020 Binding Term Sheet as an agreement to agree rather than a binding contract. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit, upheld this decision.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in its interpretation. The court held that the January 2020 Binding Term Sheet was a binding and enforceable contract, and the subsequent Employment Agreement continued and confirmed the termination-without-cause provisions. Both agreements were effective during the existence of the community property regime between the plaintiff and the defendant, making the liquidated damages a community asset.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the defendant and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her a one-half share of the net liquidated damages, amounting to $8,134,500. View "Orgeron v. Orgeron" on Justia Law

LaToya Adams (Mother) and Dominick Gallegos (Father) are divorced, with Father having primary physical custody of their minor children as per a district court order. Mother filed a motion for an order to show cause, seeking to hold Father in contempt of the custody order, alleging that Father was not allowing her visitation with the children. The district court denied her motion, leading to this appeal.The District Court of Laramie County had previously modified the custody arrangement in August 2023, granting Father physical custody and allowing Mother visitation as deemed safe and appropriate by Father. The order also required the children to remain in counseling and for the parties to follow the recommendations of the counselors regarding visitation. During the hearing, testimony revealed that Father had restricted Mother's contact with the children due to safety concerns, particularly for one child, Y.G., who had significant mental health issues exacerbated by contact with Mother. The district court found that Father acted in good faith based on the therapist's recommendation and did not violate the custody order, thus denying Mother's motion for contempt.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and noted several deficiencies in Mother's appeal, including the lack of a designated record and failure to comply with procedural rules. The court found that Mother's brief did not present cogent arguments or pertinent authority to support her claims. Consequently, the Wyoming Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the denial of Mother's motion for an order to show cause. View "Adams v. Gallegos" on Justia Law

Edward Conant Gartrell, Jr. and Sharon Smith Gartrell were divorced by a 2023 judgment of the Madison Circuit Court, which denied Sharon's request for periodic alimony. Sharon appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her alimony request. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the divorce judgment in part but reversed the denial of periodic alimony, remanding the case for reconsideration under § 30-2-57. On remand, the trial court again denied Sharon's request for periodic alimony, finding she failed to prove her need and the husband's ability to pay without undue hardship.Sharon appealed again, arguing the trial court erred by not reserving jurisdiction to award periodic alimony in the future. The Court of Civil Appeals, in a plurality opinion, affirmed the denial of periodic alimony but agreed that the trial court should have reserved jurisdiction, citing the potential for Sharon's financial circumstances to change. The dissenting opinion argued that § 30-2-57(c) provides the only circumstances under which a court can reserve jurisdiction, implying that the common law allowing broader discretion had been abrogated.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case to address whether § 30-2-57(c) limits the circumstances in which a trial court can reserve jurisdiction to award periodic alimony. The court held that § 30-2-57(c) does not provide the only circumstances for reserving jurisdiction. Instead, it requires reservation in specific circumstances but does not preclude the court's common-law authority to reserve jurisdiction when justice requires it. The court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, allowing the trial court to reserve jurisdiction to award periodic alimony in the future if warranted by changing circumstances. View "Ex parte Gartrell" on Justia Law