Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

S.J.H. appealed a district court order granting the State’s motion for sanctions against him for failure to obey a court order for genetic testing and from a default judgment ordering him to pay child support. The North Dakota Child Support Division (“State”) commenced a civil action against S.J.H. to establish paternity for a minor child. S.J.H. retained counsel. In S.J.H.’s answer and counterclaim, he included a request for genetic testing to be conducted. At a hearing nearly four months later, he withdrew his request for testing. The district court then entered an order requiring S.J.H. to submit to genetic testing. After two months went by with no testing having been conducted, the district court requested a status update from the parties. S.J.H.’s counsel responded that S.J.H. had not been tested, and counsel moved to withdraw, stating that his attorney-client relationship with S.J.H. had “deteriorated to a degree that further representation is not possible” after their discussions about the proceedings “resulted in an impasse.” The State subsequently scheduled an appointment for genetic testing for March 25, 2021, in S.J.H.’s state of residence. On March 10, the State sent a letter to S.J.H.’s counsel with the information regarding the upcoming appointment. This letter was sent to counsel only and not directly to S.J.H. On March 31, the court granted S.J.H.’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. On April 30, the district court again asked the State and S.J.H. for a status update. Because S.J.H. failed to attend his March 25 appointment, the State requested sanctions against him, including striking his answer and rendering default judgment against him. S.J.H. stated he was unaware of the March 25 appointment, and learned of such appointment only upon being served the State’s motion for default judgment two months later. Nevertheless, the court granted the State's motion for sanctions. S.J.H. argued on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in granting sanctions against him because his former attorney failed to notify him of the scheduled genetic testing appointment, thus he did not disobey the court order to submit to genetic testing. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the sanctions order. View "North Dakota v. S.J.H., et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating the parental rights of Father, holding that any error committed by the circuit court did not prejudice Father.After a hearing, the circuit court issued a decision terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) erred when it prematurely signed the State's proposed findings, but Father failed to establish prejudice caused by the error; (2) did not err when it determined that the Department of Social Services made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family; (3) did not clearly err in finding that Father's continued custody of the children would result in serious physical or emotional harm; and (4) did not err when it found that termination of Father's parental rights was the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the best interests of the children. View "In re A.A." on Justia Law

Scarlett was born in Honduras in 2013. Her family moved to the United States in 2015. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services received a referral claiming that her father, Franklin, had attacked her mother, Karen. The Department filed a Welfare and Institutions Code 300(a), (b)(1) petition. The court found true the allegations that, because of multiple instances of domestic violence, and because Franklin had hit Scarlett with a belt, Franklin placed Scarlett at risk of serious physical harm and Karen failed to protect her.Scarlett subsequently filed a request for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) findings under Code of Civil Procedure 155.1. A child is eligible for SIJ status if: the child is a dependent of a juvenile court, in the custody of a state agency by court order, or in the custody of an individual or entity appointed by the court; the child cannot reunify with one or both parents due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and it is not in the child’s best interest to return to his or her home country or the home country of her parents. The juvenile court denied the request, ruling the findings were “discretionary.” The court of appeal reversed. The lower court was required to consider the evidence submitted and Scarlett submitted unimpeached and uncontradicted evidence that required the court to enter an order with the findings Scarlett requested under section 155. View "In re Scarlett V." on Justia Law

Mandy and Dan Valentine divorced in 2015. In 2017, Mandy petitioned the magistrate court for an order modifying the child custody and support provisions of the divorce decree. The magistrate court did not modify the custody provisions in the decree but concluded that substantial and material changes in circumstances existed to justify modifying the child support order. Mandy appealed several aspects of this ruling to the district court. The district court, sitting in an appellate capacity, affirmed in part and reversed in part the magistrate court’s order. On appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, Mandy challenged the district court’s conclusion that her student loans and several other sources of income could be combined to calculate her income under the Idaho Child Support Guidelines. Dan cross-appealed, challenging the district court’s conclusion that the magistrate court abused its discretion in calculating his pro rata share of childcare expenses. The Supreme Court determined that while the district court correctly interpreted the Idaho Child Support Guidelines to require the inclusion of gross and, if applicable, potential income in the calculation of Guidelines Income, it erred in concluding that the magistrate court’s failure to make a finding that Mandy was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed before imputing potential income to her was harmless. Second, the district court erred in determining that the magistrate court abused its discretion in ordering Dan to pay his pro rata share of childcare expenses after subtracting the amount of Idaho Child Care Program benefits Mandy received from the total costs. View "Valentine v. Valentine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their older child and the order finding that Mother's younger child was in jeopardy in her care, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in concluding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C.S. 1901-1963, did not apply to either child, and Father challenged the termination of his parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in concluding that the ICWA did not apply to either of Mother's two children; and (2) the court did not err or abuse its discretion by finding at least one ground of parental unfitness and in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the older child. View "In re Children of Michelle C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the juvenile court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights.The juvenile court concluded that the State proved the grounds for termination and terminated Father's parental rights. Father's counsel filed a motion for belated appeal, which the Supreme Court granted. The Supreme Court then affirmed, holding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the bases for termination under both Iowa Code 232.116(1)(3) and 232.116(1)(h) were satisfied and that no exceptions in Iowa Code 232.116(3) applied to preclude the termination. View "In re W.T." on Justia Law

The circuit court of Cook County adjudicated Z.L. and Z.L.’s siblings abused and neglected minors under the Juvenile Court Act (705 ILCS 405/2-3) and made the minors wards of the court. The appellate court reversed the findings of abuse and neglect and remanded for compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. 1912(a).The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the judgment of the circuit court, rejecting arguments that the state failed to prove Z.L. was a victim of abusive head trauma and that the court’s finding that Z.L. was physically abused was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s conclusion that the mother was unable, at that time, to parent the children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court remanded for a determination of whether there was compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Although the record disclosed that the state sent notification to the Bureau of Indian Affairs on December 20, 2019, there is no evidence as to what has transpired in connection with this notice since that time. View "In re Z.L." on Justia Law

Chad Quamme appealed a divorce judgment, arguing the district court erred when it calculated child support and when it awarded Ashley Quamme spousal support. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s child support determination, concluding the court’s finding that Chad was self-employed was not supported by the evidence. The Court also reversed the court’s award of spousal support because it was unable to determine the court’s rationale for deciding Chad had the ability to pay. The case was remanded for the district court to recalculate child support and to reassess whether an award of spousal support was warranted. View "Quamme v. Quamme" on Justia Law

Terry and Xiomara Robirds married in Taos, New Mexico in 2004. Prior to the marriage, Terry worked for Halliburton and ConocoPhillips. He participated in employer sponsored retirement plans with both employers. In 2007, Terry and Xiomara purchased a residence in Rigby, Idaho. Xiomara’s name was not listed on the warranty deed, and she executed a quitclaim deed to Terry on June 4, 2007. The seller issued a warranty deed to Terry on June 6, 2007. Xiomara filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences in September 2016, and Terry counterclaimed on the same grounds. Xiomara was not proficient in English. The parties attended mediation with a Spanish speaking mediator for Xiomara and reached a partial agreement as to custody, support, and visitation for their only child, but did not resolve the issue of property distribution. Then prior to trial, the parties reached a settlement regarding property division. The record was not clear as to whether Xiomara had an interpreter during the negotiations that resulted in the Property Settlement. Xiomara claimed she did not. Terry averred a Spanish speaking mediator was assigned but did not specifically allege that an interpreter was present during the negotiations which led to the Property Settlement. The divorce decree, entered August 2017 (“Decree”), incorporated the Property Settlement as Exhibit B. Terry appealed the district court’s decision on intermediate appeal, which affirmed the decision of the magistrate court to: (1) set aside a stipulated judgment regarding property distribution; and (2) characterize all of Terry’s retirement accounts as community property, to be divided equally as of the date of divorce. On appeal, Terry argued that the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court’s rulings and in failing to award Terry attorney fees on intermediate appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirm the district court. View "Robirds v. Robirds" on Justia Law

Cliff Boldt appealed a divorce judgment, arguing the district court erred when it awarded Heidi Boldt primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor children. He argued the court’s analysis of the best interest factors was inadequate, and the evidence did not support its decision. Heidi cross appealed, arguing the court erred when it calculated child support. She argued the court improperly allowed Cliff to deduct amounts he paid her for the children’s health insurance premiums from his gross income. Finding no reversible error in either appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Boldt v. Boldt" on Justia Law