Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Jason and Andrea Alm appealed a district court order denying grandparent visitation, arguing the district court erred in finding they did not meet the statutory requirements for nonparent visitation. The Alms were the parents of Spencer Muchow. Muchow and Mariah Kohler had two children, S.J.M.A. and D.J.M.A. In 2018, the district court awarded Muchow primary residential responsibility of the children. Muchow died in 2019 and the children went into Kohler’s exclusive care. In 2020, the Alms filed a petition for visitation. After a hearing, a judicial referee denied the Alms’ petition. The Alms requested district court review. The district court adopted the referee’s findings, concluding it was not proven that the Alms had a significant emotional bond with their grandchildren, and that denial of visitation would harm their grandchildren. The district court found Kohler was acting in her children’s best interest and could allow the Alms visitation if she so decided. Upon review of the evidence and the district court’s findings, the North Dakota Supreme Court was "not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake was made." Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Muchow v. Kohler, et al." on Justia Law

Richard Anderson and Priscilla Iakel-Garcia married in 2008 and had one child. In November 2019, Iakel-Garcia filed for divorce. In November 2020, a bench trial was held by reliable electronic means. Richard appealed the judgment granting the parties’ divorce, awarding Priscilla Iakel-Garcia primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making of the parties’ minor child, and distributing the parties’ marital estate. Richard argued the district court erred in awarding Priscilla primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making because the court should not have considered his criminal conviction. Further, he argued the court failed to divide the property equitably between the parties. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment awarding Priscilla primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making. However, the Court found the district court failed to determine the total value of the marital estate before dividing the marital property. "The judgment, without any reference to the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, fails to list any value for the parties’ assets. As a result, we are unable to determine whether the court equitably distributed the marital estate because the court did not make sufficient findings to permit appellate review." This portion of the district court judgment was reversed and the matter remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Iakel-Garcia v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the divorce judgment issued in the district court as to child support and affirmed in all other respects, holding that the district court erred in calculating child support.Lawrence Bloom and Annalee Bloom had two children when they divorced. The district court entered a divorce judgment on Annalee's complaint setting forth child support and spousal support and distributing the marital property. Lawrence appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) because the child support worksheets and orders contained multiple errors, the court's child support determination in the amended judgment must be corrected; and (2) the judgment is otherwise affirmed. View "Bloom v. Bloom" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated in part the judgment of the district court modifying the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities in the divorce judgment in this case, holding that the court abused its discretion in declining to take judicial notice of certain information and failed adequately to explain certain modifications.On appeal, Appellant argued that the court erred in failing to take judicial notice of vaccine information available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website and failed to provide an explanation when it changed the contract schedule and allocated final decision-making authority on educational and medical matters to Appellee. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) the court abused its discretion in refusing to take judicial notice; and (2) the court inadequately explained its modifications to the contact schedule and the allocation of decision-making authority. View "Seymour v. Seymour" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting Respondent's petition to adopt H.G., holding that there was insufficient to show that the court abused its discretion in granting the petition for adoption.When she filed her petition to adopt H.G., Respondent had been H.G.'s primary caretaker for seven years and his legal guardian for three years, and had had sole discretion regarding visitation with the child for one year. Petitioner, the child's birth mother, opposed the adoption. After a hearing, the circuit court granted the petition on the grounds that Petitioner had abandoned the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in concluding (1) involuntary wage garnishment in 2019 did not constitute financial support; and (2) Petitioner failed to visit or communicate with the child for at least six months preceding the petition. View "In re Adoption of H.G." on Justia Law

The superior court determined that an unmarried couple lived for a time as domestic partners and, in connection with the dissolution of the domestic partnership, that a residential property one party purchased was intended to be domestic partnership property. The court ordered a 50/50 division of the partnership equity by way of an equalization payment. The property owner appealed both determinations and the resulting equalization payment. In this opinion, the Alaska Supreme Court addressed only the superior court’s property ruling, concluding that the court erred by determining the residential property was intended to be domestic partnership property. "Even assuming Kristy and John’s relationship rose to the level of a domestic partnership, the factors used to determine intent for property to be domestic partnership property do not support an intent to share ownership, and based on the evidence in the record finding an intent to share ownership of the Rose Lane property was clearly erroneous." The Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s decision, vacated the equalization payment judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. View "McConville v. Otness" on Justia Law

The grandmother of an Indian child was appointed as the child’s guardian. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of the child after the grandmother admitted using methamphetamine and the child tested positive for the drug. After working with the grandmother to address her drug use and other issues, OCS petitioned to terminate the grandmother’s guardianship. Following a hearing, the superior court found that termination of the guardianship was in the child’s best interests and removed the grandmother as guardian. The grandmother appealed, arguing that her removal violated the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and that termination of the guardianship was not in the child’s best interests. Finding no reversible error, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s removal of the grandmother as guardian. View "In the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of: Baron W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's ruling that Iowa Code chapter 411 ordinary disability benefits are marital property, holding that chapter 411 ordinary disability benefits replace income that an individual would have earned if not for an injury causing the disability and should be treated as income rather than as property.The district court entered a dissolution decree dissolving the marriage of Matt and Karri Miller. The district court determined that Matt's chapter 411 ordinary disability benefit was marital property subject to division. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Matt's future disability benefit was income or property. The Supreme Court vacated in part the court of appeals' decision and let the rest of the court of appeals' opinion stand on the remaining issues, holding that Matt's future disability benefit is a replacement for income and not part of the marital pot to be divided upon dissolution. View "In re Marriage of Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the disposition order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his infant child, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights in lieu of granting him an improvement period.The circuit court adjudicated Father of being abusive and neglectful because his incarceration rendered him unable to care for the child and unable to protect the child from Mother's substance abuse. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court's analysis under In re Cecil T., 717 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2011), was insufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court failed to conduct an appropriate Cecil T. analysis; but (2) under this Court's own Cecil T. review, Petitioner's parental rights should be terminated. View "In re A.F." on Justia Law

Blizzard invested in a tire pyrolysis project in Kansas and subsequently sued Schaefers. A Kansas jury returned a $3.825 million fraud judgment, which was entered in California. The California court added a judgment debtor (BKS) pursuant to the “outside reverse veil piercing” doctrine, which arises when the request for piercing comes from a third party outside the targeted business entity. The targeted entity was BKS. Schaefers owns a 50 percent interest in that LLC. Schaefers’ wife, Karin, owns the other 50 percent. Neither Karin nor BKS was a defendant in the Kansas action. The California court found that BKS is Schaefers’ alter ego.The court of appeal affirmed in part. The evidence is sufficient to support the finding that BKS is Schaefers’ alter ego. The court remanded for further proceedings so that the trial court may weigh competing equities that bear on the veil-piercing issue. Blizzard is entitled to recover the damages awarded by the Kansas judgment, but Karin may be an innocent third party who would suffer substantial harm if recovery is accomplished through the reverse veil piercing; there is no indication that she was involved in the fraud committed by Schaefers. Karin may not be responsible for debts incurred by Schaefers after their separation in 1996. View "Blizzard Energy, Inc. v. Schaefers" on Justia Law