Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After a hearing, the circuit court found that there was no reasonable likelihood that Father could substantially correct the conditions of abuse and neglect in the near future and that the welfare of the child necessitated termination of Father's parental rights. On appeal, Father argued that the circuit court erred by terminating his parental rights instead of imposing a W.Va. Code 49-4-604(c)(5) disposition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Father's parental rights. View "In re L.W." on Justia Law

The family came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services in 2017, following a domestic violence incident. Mother did not work. Father was the sole financial provider for the family. They were not married but had been in a relationship for over 14 years. Father denied any domestic violence or drug use. The children denied witnessing any domestic violence. The family had prior referrals for physical abuse by mother in 2010, emotional abuse and neglect by mother and father in 2012, and a prior dependency case in 2014 based on domestic violence and mother’s substance abuse. In 2021, the court terminated father’s parental rights to the children, now 13, 10, and six years old.The court of appeal reversed. The juvenile court abused its discretion when it applied the wrong legal standard in finding the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply (Welf. & Inst. Code 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i); the court did not have the benefit of new authority, In re Caden C. (2021), concerning the benefits to the children from continuing the relationship with father, or the detriment to the children of terminating the relationship. View "In re D.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court in this case arising out of a dispute between the children of Lawrence and Phyllis Schwagerl over the disposition of assets owned by Lawrence's trust before his death, holding that the court of appeals erred in part.The assets in this case included undivided half-interests in more than 700 acres of farm real estate owned by the family, as well as Lawrence and Phillis's residence and surrounding yard. The district court determined (1) the Lawrence Trust agreement created a family trust upon Lawrence's death and that his undivided half-interest in the farm real estate was distributed to that trust, and (2) Phillis waived her right to Lawrence's undivided half-interest in the couple's personal residence at the time of his death by intentionally leaving ownership of that property within the family trust. View "In re Trust of Lawrence B. Schwagerl" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders denying placement with Mother, and remanded for further hearing on Mother's request for placement. The court concluded that substantial evidence does not support the detriment finding. The court explained that Mother did not abandon the children or knowingly leave them in the care of an abusive Father. Rather, she fled California for safety reasons and regularly monitored the children's well-being, believing that Father would not abuse or neglect them. Furthermore, she quickly returned to California when trouble arose, attending hearings, participating in services, and undergoing a psychiatric evaluation. View "In re Solomon B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his eleven-year-old daughter, holding that the circuit court erred by finding that the statutory grounds for termination were met.For the past seven years, the child in this case had lived with Respondents, her maternal great-grandparents. After Father sought custody of the child, an abuse and neglect petition was filed against him. After a hearing, the circuit court ordered that Father's rights be terminated based on his absence from and lack of involvement in the child's life and concluding that it was in the child's best interest to remain in Father's' custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court erred in terminating Father's parental rights. View "In re S.C." on Justia Law

In Alaska, a child was presumed to be at substantial risk of sexual abuse (and therefore in need of aid) if the parent knowingly leaves the child with a person convicted of or under investigation for a sex offense against a minor. After an adjudication hearing, a superior court found a child to be at substantial risk of sexual abuse based on evidence that she was left with her mother’s boyfriend, who had been indicted for sexual abuse of a minor. The mother appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by not acknowledging that an indictment was weaker proof than a conviction and by not making findings about the likelihood that the conduct underlying the indictment actually occurred. Because the statute did not require the superior court to draw such distinctions or make such findings, and because the findings the court did make are not clearly erroneous, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed its ruling that the child was in need of aid. View "Cynthia W. v. Alaska, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment, holding that the trial court erred.Petitioners filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights on several grounds. Following hearings, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect and willful abandonment. The trial court entered a separate order concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court (1) erred in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on willful abandonment, and (2) failed to make any findings regarding the likelihood of future neglect. View "In re B.R.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights in his son, holding that the failure of the Transylvania County Department of Social Services (DSS) to verify its motion in the cause for termination, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1104, deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.After conducting a hearing on the DSS' motion seeking termination of Father's parental rights, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights. On appeal, Father argued as his sole point that DSS' failure to verify its motion for termination deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the trial court's order, holding (1) the requirement contained in subsection 7B-1104 is jurisdictional as applied to both a petition for termination and a motion for termination; and (2) DSS' failure to verify its motion in the cause deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. View "In re O.E.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court holding Mother in contempt for denying Father visitation with their child during summer and for the Thanksgiving holiday, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in determining that she willfully violated the divorce decree. Specifically, Mother argued that she could not have willfully violated the decree because it was no clear, specific, and unambiguous about summer visitation or about how to conduct holiday visitation during a global pandemic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found Mother in contempt for denying Father summer and Thanksgiving visitation. View "Burrow v. Sieler" on Justia Law

Wife appealed the family division’s May 2021 order granting husband’s motion to permit him to purchase the marital home. Wife argued this was an impermissible modification of the stipulated property division incorporated into the 2017 final divorce order. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed with her, and reversed. View "Horgan v. Horgan" on Justia Law