Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court ordering Husband's divorce from Wife and awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' two children to Wife, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that Husband disclose all counseling records to Wife in order to have contact with their children.Six to seven years before Wife filed the complaint for divorce Husband's mental health began deteriorating. The trial judge granted Wife a divorce, ordered that Wife would have sole parental rights and responsibilities of the children, and ordered that Husband provide his counseling records to Wife to help convince Wife to allow visitation with the children and when this should occur. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding that the term "counseling records" could include information that Wife may not have a right to access under federal and state law, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion in imposing this condition. View "Doe v. Walsh" on Justia Law

Chad Quamme appealed an amended judgment setting his child support obligation and ordering him to pay spousal support to Ashley Quamme. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court failed to properly calculate Chad's child support obligation and the evidence in the record did not support the court’s spousal support decision. Judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Quamme v. Quamme" on Justia Law

Alonna Knorr, formerly known as Alonna Knorr Norberg, appealed a money judgment entered in favor of Jon Norberg for Knorr’s share of unpaid expenses assigned to her under the divorce judgment. Knorr argued the district court erred by denying her motion to dismiss or vacate the order granting Norberg’s motion to amend the judgment because the parties had a global settlement agreement that resolved the issues in this case. In Knorr v. Norberg, 2022 ND 139, 977 N.W.2d 711, the North Dakota Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded for the district court to consider the settlement agreement and for an explanation of the basis for its decision. View "Norberg v. Norberg, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the determination of the district court that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply to this proceeding but declined Mother's request to order her three minor children's immediate return to her, holding that remand was required due to noncompliance issues.Grandparents filed a petition to establish parenting and custody of three minor children, alleging that a child-parent relationship as defined by Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-211(6), existed between the children and Grandparents and that Parents had engaged in conduct contrary to the parent-child relationship. Parents and Grandparents subsequently signed a stipulated parenting plan designating Grandparents as the sole guardians of the children. Mother later filed a notice that she was withdrawing her consent to the stipulated parenting plan pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 1913(b), part of ICWA, and a motion for immediate return of the children to her custody. The district court denied relief, ruling that ICWA does not apply to internal family disputes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court failed to follow ICWA's procedural requirements and that remand was required for further proceedings. View "In re L.R.J." on Justia Law

A child was severely injured while in his father’s care. The father did not immediately seek medical help and gave conflicting explanations of how his son’s injury occurred. An Alaska superior court found probable cause to believe that the child was in need of aid, limited the father’s contact with the child and mother, and awarded the mother custody. A few months later the father was arrested outside the family home, and evidence suggested that the mother had allowed contact between him and their son in violation of military and civil no-contact orders. The superior court adjudicated the boy as a child in need of aid based on the actions of both parents. The parents separately appealed the adjudication. But after the appeals were filed, the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) informed the superior court that the child could safely be returned to his parents’ care, and the superior court closed the case. On appeal the parents argue that their appeals were mooted by the superior court’s dismissal of OCS’s case and that the Alaska Supreme Court should decline to hear the appeals and vacate the adjudication order to avoid the potential for collateral consequences. In the alternative, they argued that if this case was heard on the merits the Supreme Court should find that the superior court erred in adjudicating their son as a child in need of aid. The Court concluded it should hear the appeals on the merits, and therefore did not vacate the adjudication order. On the merits, the Supreme Court affirmed the order. View "Reed S. v. Alaska Department of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting Father's petition to modify the parties' divorce decree by awarding Father primary physical custody of the children and restricting Mother's visitation with the children, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.On appeal, Mother argued, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by suspending her right to overnight visitation with the children for part of the time the modification action was pending. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in awarding primary physical and sole legal custody of the parties' two children to Father; and (2) Mother was not entitled to relief on her remaining allegations of error. View "Baer v. Baer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for review of the decision of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court granting the City of Austin's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing this case brought by Plaintiff alleging that the City provided taxpayer money to abortion-assistance organizations in violation of Texas law, holding that the case must be remanded.The trial court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction without explaining its reasons and dismissed with prejudice Petitioner's claim that the City's budget violated Texas law and dismissed with prejudice Petitioner's claim that the City's 2019 budget violated the Gift Clause. The court of appeals affirmed, relying on the Supreme Court's holding in Roe to conclude that Petitioner's claim could not proceed. Petitioner petitioned for review. After briefing was complete, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for review without regard to the merits and vacated the judgments below, holding that, because Dobbs overruled Roe, remand was required for consideration of the effect this change in the law and any intervening factual developments on Petitioner's claims. View "Zimmerman v. City of Austin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Wife's complaint alleging legal malpractice arising from legal advice given in the course of drafting an estate plan, holding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.After a decree of divorce issued divorcing Husband and Wife Husband appealed. The Supreme Court partly reversed the divorce decree, determining that assets in the parties' spendthrift trusts created in a separate property agreement could not be levied against through court order, that the separate property agreement was valid, and that the parties' property was avidly separated into their respective separate property trusts when it was executed. Wife subsequently filed a legal malpractice complaint against Attorney, who previously assisted the parties in creating their estate plan, seeking $5 million in damages. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the legal malpractice claim was transactional and that that the statute of limitations barred the claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no need to toll commencement of the limitations period for transactional malpractice claims; and (2) Wife's legal malpractice claim was transactional, and therefore, the litigation-malpractice tolling rule did not apply. View "Nelson v. Burr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court finding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 432B.393(3)(c) violates due process, holding that the statute does not infringe on the fundamental liberty interest a parent has in the care and custody of his or her child and thus does not violate due process.Section 432B.393(3)(c) relieves a child welfare services agency from its duty to provide reasonable efforts to reunify a child with his or her parent if a court finds that the parents' parental rights were involuntarily terminated with respect to the child's sibling. A court master recommended that the district court find section 432B.393(3)(c) unconstitutional because, for purposes of terminating the parent-child relationship, it could lead to a presumption that the parent is unfit without any consideration of present circumstances. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's order, holding (1) insofar as section 432B.393(3)(c) relieves an agency of making reunification efforts it does not infringe on a parent's fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his or her child and therefore does not violate due process; and (2) although the district court erred, the petition must be denied as moot. View "Washoe County Human Services v. District Court" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Husband's motions to continue the bench trial and the court's division of marital property, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.After seventeen years of marriage, the parties in this case divorced. Husband appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional due process in denying his motions to continue the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not deny Husband due process by denying Husband's motions to continue; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in its division of marital property and debts. View "Engebretsen v. Engebretsen" on Justia Law