Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision of the court of appeals that vacated the orders of the circuit court regarding the adoption and custody of two children, holding that the adoption statutes require that the parental rights of both biological parents be terminated upon the grant of an adoption, with the single exception of a stepparent adoption.Following a hearing, the circuit court terminated the parental rights of the unknown biological fathers of the two children at issue and granted the petition to adopt the children filed by David, who was the former husband of the child's mother. David was not the biological father of the children, but he acted as such throughout their lives. Mother filed a motion to dismiss the adoption petitions based in part on David's lack of paternity. The circuit court terminated the putative fathers' parental rights and allowed David to adopt the children while leaving Mother's parental rights intact. The court then granted David and Mother joint custody of the children. The court of appeals reversed the adoption order and the custody order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's adoption orders violated Kentucky's adoption statutes and must be vacated. View "J.S.B. v. S.R.V." on Justia Law

Shortly before turning three years old, J.D. in 2018, was removed from his mother’s custody following two violent altercations in his presence, one of which seriously injured his six-month-old half-sister. Ultimately, J.D.’s mother (R.T.) was unable to overcome parenting struggles that were the byproduct of a damaged childhood spent in foster care. Her parental rights were terminated.The court of appeal reversed and remanded for a new hearing. While the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court clarified the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights (Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)). The court stated that it is not possible to determine on the record that the juvenile court’s ruling complied with the principles announced in the Supreme Court’s decision. R.T. had maintained regular visitation and contact but it is unclear that the court properly weighed the existence of a beneficial relationship and the relative harms and benefits of that relationship against the benefits of adoption. While it is in J.D.’s interest to expeditiously select his permanent plan, the interests at stake when parental rights are terminated are of the utmost importance to both parent and child, and proper consideration of the factors deemed relevant by our dependency scheme is vital. View "In re J.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Linda Dower motion for partial summary judgment wherein she argued that certain trust assets should be included in an estate in order to satisfy her statutory allowances, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Douglas Dower was married to Alyce Dower until her death in 2008. The couple had four children, including Jayne Dower Lux, and executed a revocable living trust. In 2011, Douglas married Linda. After Douglas died and during the probate process, Linda argued that certain trust assets should be included in the estate for purposes of satisfying her statutory allowances. The district court denied Linda's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it concluded that trust assets were nonprobate assets and could only be used to satisfy Linda's statutory allowances when and to the extent the probate estate was insufficient; (2) did not err when it determined the probate estate was sufficient to satisfy Linda's statutory allowances through the abatement of her specific devises; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by denying Linda's motion to remove Lux as personal representative. View "In re Estate of Dower" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed as interlocutory Father's appeal from a judicial review order requiring him to return his child to Maine, holding that Father's appeal of the interlocutory order was not permitted.After a hearing to address Father's request for a parental rights and responsibilities order and to perform a judicial review regarding the child's relocation to Florida with Father, the court found that there was no jeopardy as to Father and ordered that the child remain in his custody subject to certain conditions. Father appealed this order. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that appeal was interlocutory and not authorized under statute. View "In re Child of Nicholas G." on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Idaho Supreme Court's review was one of first impression involving a magistrate court’s custody determination of an eight-year-old developmentally delayed and hearing-impaired child (Child) who was removed from his father’s (Father) care by law enforcement on an emergency basis. Child was found home alone by representatives of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW or the Department). After a shelter care hearing, the magistrate court determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that Child fell within the jurisdiction of the CPA based on a lack of a stable home environment. Father objected to the magistrate court’s exercise of jurisdiction, arguing that because Father had been granted joint custody of Child with Child’s mother (Mother) by a California court, the UCCJEA applied, which required the magistrate court to consult with the California court that had previously entered the custody order before the magistrate court could proceed in Idaho. After contacting and communicating with the California judge’s representative, the magistrate court conducted an adjudicatory hearing, ultimately vesting custody of Child with the Department. Finding no reversible error in this judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court's decision. View "IDHW v. John Doe" on Justia Law

Cynthia Hilton appealed a trial court's decision to deny her motion to divide an omitted asset: a company partially owned by her ex-husband, Lance Hilton. Cynthia alleged that because the stipulated divorce decree did not list the company as community or separate property, it was an omitted asset and she was entitled to half of its retained earnings allocable to Lance. The magistrate court denied Cynthia’s motion on the basis that it had previously determined the company was Lance’s separate property. On intermediate appeal, the district court affirmed. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Hilton v. Hilton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his son, holding that the trial court failed to make proper findings on adjudication.Mother initiated this action seeking to terminate Father's parental rights, asserting that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on willful abandonment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). After a hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the order below, holding that the trial court failed to make proper findings on adjudication and remand was required for further factual findings. View "In re K.J.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their child, holding that the trial court properly adjudicated the existence of a ground for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3).The Department of Social Services filed a petition to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, willful failure to make progress, failure to pay for the cost of care for the juvenile, and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). After a hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate the parents' parental rights as alleged in the petition and that it was in the child's best interest that the parents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that a ground for termination existed pursuant to subsection 7B-1111(a)(3) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of the parents' parental rights. View "In re D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.The trial court found that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother failed to show prejudice from the trial court's denial of her counsel's motion to continue the termination hearing; and (2) the trial court sufficiently complied with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act as it pertained to the child. View "In re D.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor daughters, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's adjudication of the existence of grounds for termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1).After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order that adjudicated the existence of the three grounds for termination alleged in the motion to terminate Mother's parental rights, concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests, and terminated Mother's parental rights in the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence in the record supported the trial court's adjudication of the existence of grounds for termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). View "In re L.H." on Justia Law