Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two minor children, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.This was an appeal in private termination proceedings initiated by the children's paternal aunt to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father. The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to both children for willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of their cost of care and willful abandonment and that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the termination petition and did not err in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for the children. View "In re M.J.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's parental rights based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2).The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in his two children pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. Thus, the trial court terminated Father's rights. Father appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate Father's parental rights; and (2) the trial court did not err in terminating Father's rights under sections 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2). View "In re K.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusion that grounds for termination existed.The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights on four grounds. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). The trial court entered two written orders terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, concluding that four grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that errors related to each of the four grounds for termination required reversal. View "In re Z.G.J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1) based on neglect.On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred by adjudicating grounds for termination of her parental rights under N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by determining that grounds existed under section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re M.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing for lack of jurisdiction this case in which Father moved to modify a child support order, holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.Father attempted to register the child support order in this case from Florida in a Kansas district court. Father further moved to modify the amount of the order. The district court imposed a temporary modification order. When it was discovered that Father had failed to include the Florida order with his registration materials, the court voided the registration and modification and dismissed the case, concluding that it never had jurisdiction to modify the order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Father's failure to properly register his order had no effect on the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. View "Chalmers v. Burrough" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court finding that the natural, minor children of Father were abused or were at risk of being abuse while in his care pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 600.020(1)(a)(5), holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the issues raised by Father.On appeal, Father argued that the trial court erred in (1) admitting a portion of the testimony of his youngest child's therapist describing the alleged abuse and naming Father as the perpetrator, and (2) not giving greater weight to the grand jury findings of "no true bill" when they were submitted as evidence at the adjudication hearing. The court of appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on either of the evidentiary matters brought forward on appeal. View "B.B. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court answered three reported questions regarding whether the provision in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, 29C that the court shall determine reasonable efforts not less than annually permits or requires a juvenile court judge to make a reasonable efforts determination at other times, holding that a party may file a motion for a determination of reasonable efforts at other times.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held that, following judicial certification of reasonable efforts at the emergency custody hearing and the seventy-two hour hearing, there is no requirement that a trial court judge determine that the department has continued to engage in reasonable efforts at any time prior to the statutorily mandated annual review, but the trial judge has the discretion to do so upon the motion of a parent or child. View "In re Care & Protection of Rashida" on Justia Law

Months after the juvenile court denied E.G. (Mother) reunification services, Mother filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 asking for reunification services. The court denied the petition and terminated parental rights to Mother’s daughter, N.F. Mother argued on appeal that the court abused its discretion by denying her section 388 petition. Both Mother and D.F. (Father) argued the court erred by refusing to apply the parental bond exception to termination of parental rights. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mother’s section 388 petition. Mother failed to show: (1) a material change in circumstances; or (2) that granting Mother reunification services would promote N.F.’s best interests. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court concluded the court did not err by refusing to apply the parental bond exception. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Mother’s petition and affirm the order terminating parental rights. View "In re N.F." on Justia Law

N.B. was removed from her parents’ care in 2008 when she was one year old. Her grandmother, Catherine, cared for her became her legal guardian in 2012. A maternal aunt also became a co-guardian. Years later N.B. struggled with her mental health and Catherine had trouble managing her care. The juvenile court found that N.B. was suffering serious emotional damage. Services were provided. She was released to her maternal aunt’s care after she said she did not feel safe returning to Catherine’s care. The maternal aunt became “overwhelmed” and returned her to Catherine. N.B. continued to suffer mental health issues.A petition under section 388 sought to terminate the guardianship rights of the maternal aunt and the family maintenance services. Catherine and the aunt had lied about N.B.’s whereabouts and well-being, and asked N.B. to lie during home visits. N.B. was placed in a foster home. N.B. “stabilized.” The Agency recommended terminating Catherine’s legal guardianship. Catherine objected.The juvenile court observed that there was not “any doubt on anybody’s part that [Catherine] loves [N.B. and] that she is committed to [N.B.]” but expressed concern that Catherine’s behavior was contributing to N.B.’s problems. The court terminated the legal guardianship of Catherine and the maternal aunt. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Catherine’s argument the Agency was required to “follow the procedures and requirements of section 387” to terminate her guardianship. View "In re N.B." on Justia Law

Where it is undisputed that there is a community property interest in real property, it is the obligation of both spouses to ensure that the family court has the information necessary to determine that interest, no matter which spouse brought the dissolution action. If the spouses fail to do so, the family court must direct them to furnish the missing information, reopening the case if necessary.Appellant challenges the family court's determination of the community property interest in the family home. Because the determination of the community property interest in the property at issue in this case was based upon incomplete information, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and remanded with directions to the family court to hold a limited retrial to determine the amount of community funds used to reduce the mortgage principal and to recalculate the community property interest. View "Ramsey v. Holmes" on Justia Law