Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Andrew Nisbet petitioned for the return of his two young children to Scotland under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The children had been taken to the United States by their mother, Spirit Bridger, in June 2022. Nisbet argued that the children were habitual residents of Scotland and that Bridger had wrongfully removed them.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, after a bench trial, denied Nisbet's petition. The court found that Nisbet failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were habitual residents of Scotland. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the children's lack of meaningful relationships in Scotland, Bridger's credible testimony that she never intended for Scotland to be a permanent home, and her lack of ties to Scotland.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in its findings. The court emphasized that the district court properly considered the children's lack of meaningful connections in Scotland and Bridger's intentions and circumstances as the sole caregiving parent. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the children did not have a habitual residence in Scotland under the Hague Convention, and therefore, Bridger did not wrongfully remove them. View "Nisbet v. Bridger" on Justia Law

The case involves the father of J.M. (Father) appealing an order from the Circuit Court denying his motion to dismiss a neglect petition due to defective service of process. The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed the petition after J.M.'s mother passed away, leaving J.M. without a caretaker. Father, who was living in Florida and had not seen J.M. for over a year, was served with the petition by a process server. He argued that service was defective because it was not performed by a law enforcement officer as required by RSA 169-C:8, I.The Circuit Court denied Father's motion to dismiss, and the adjudicatory hearing proceeded, resulting in a finding of neglect and an order for J.M.'s out-of-home placement. Father did not immediately appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss and participated in the hearing, leading to the waiver of his service of process challenge under Mosier v. Kinley.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and agreed with DCYF that Father waived his challenge by not appealing immediately. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's neglect finding, noting that Father had not seen J.M. for 18 months and had not provided any support for two years despite being financially able.The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the neglect finding was supported by evidence and that the trial court did not err in continuing J.M.'s out-of-home placement instead of placing J.M. in Father's custody under DCYF supervision. The Supreme Court clarified that appeals from a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are discretionary and must be filed within 30 days. View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

The case involves a father appealing a district court's order modifying parenting time under a dissolution decree, which included granting the mother sole discretion over all parenting time with their two teenage daughters. The father also appeals the denial of his pro se motion for a new trial, alleging he lacked notice of the modification hearing. The father did not appear at the hearing, but an attorney from the same firm as his attorney of record did appear, cross-examined the mother, and made arguments. The court noted in its modification order that the father was represented by his attorney at the hearing.The district court had previously dissolved the marriage, awarding the mother sole physical custody and both parents joint legal custody of their four children. The father filed a motion for an order to show cause, alleging the mother violated the decree by denying him parenting time and disparaging him to the children. He also filed a complaint for modification, seeking to reduce his child support obligations. The mother counterclaimed, seeking modifications to the custody arrangement and child support.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the father's motion for a new trial. The court held that notice to the father's attorney constituted notice to the father, satisfying procedural due process requirements. The court also found that there was a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the parenting plan, including poor communication between the parents and the father's failure to exercise visitation rights.However, the Supreme Court held that the district court's order unlawfully delegated judicial authority to the mother by giving her sole discretion over the father's parenting time with the daughters. The court reversed this part of the order and remanded the case with directions to formulate a reasonable visitation plan in the best interests of the daughters. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's order, including modifications to the father's parenting time with the other two children and the clarification of legal custody. View "Sulzle v. Sulzle" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced in 2020, with Husband required to pay child support and attorney fees. Two years later, Wife initiated a contempt proceeding against Husband for failing to comply with the divorce decree. On the day of the contempt trial, Husband informed the court he was unable to attend due to vehicle issues. The magistrate court proceeded with the trial in his absence, found him in criminal contempt, and sentenced him to 70 days in jail, with 50 days suspended, and ordered him to pay additional attorney fees.The district court affirmed the magistrate court's decision to hold the trial in Husband's absence but reversed the incarceration sanction, finding insufficient evidence that Husband waived his right to counsel. The district court concluded that the magistrate court violated Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 75(l)(1) by imposing incarceration without an attorney present to represent Husband.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the magistrate court erred in holding the contempt trial in Husband's absence. The court held that a contemnor's right to be present at a criminal contempt trial is protected under the Sixth Amendment, similar to a criminal defendant's right. The court concluded that Husband's willful absence did not constitute a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to be present. The proper procedure would have been to issue a writ of attachment to ensure Husband's attendance.The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the order of contempt and remand to the magistrate court for further proceedings. The court also found the district court's failure to address Wife's request for attorney fees harmless, as Husband's appeal was not frivolous. No attorney fees were awarded on appeal, and costs were awarded to Husband. View "Salazar v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Jennifer and Jesse Smith divorced in 2017 after fifteen years of marriage. Jennifer, a stay-at-home mother, and Jesse, a construction superintendent, entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement requiring Jesse to pay Jennifer spousal support until January 1, 2025. The agreement included a "Review Term" stating that spousal support would be reviewed every two years. In 2018, Jesse unilaterally reduced the spousal support payments and later stopped paying altogether, leading Jennifer to file a breach of contract action.The magistrate judge dismissed Jesse's petition to modify the spousal support due to a non-merger clause, which kept the spousal support provision outside the court's jurisdiction. Jennifer then sought partial summary judgment in district court, arguing that the Review Term was too vague to be enforceable. The district court agreed, striking the Review Term but upholding the rest of the spousal support provision under the agreement's severability clause. The jury found Jesse in breach of the agreement and awarded Jennifer $76,514 in damages, plus attorney fees and costs.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the Review Term was unenforceable due to its vagueness, indefiniteness, and uncertainty. The court also upheld the district court's application of the severability clause, maintaining the enforceability of the remaining spousal support provision. Jennifer was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

In April 2022, H.H., the mother of A.E.E., was arrested for the murder of A.E.E.'s father. H.H. provided written consent for A.E.E. to be placed with the maternal aunt and uncle, A.V. and E.V., as emergency co-guardians. The maternal aunt and uncle filed a petition to be appointed as emergency and permanent co-guardians, which the paternal grandparents, K.B. and T.B., opposed, seeking guardianship themselves. The juvenile court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as emergency co-guardians pending a full hearing. After a full hearing, the court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians, and the paternal grandparents did not appeal.Following H.H.'s conviction for murder and her life sentence without parole, the maternal aunt and uncle sought to relocate out of state with A.E.E. The paternal grandparents opposed this motion and sought to remove the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians. The juvenile court granted the relocation and denied the motion to remove the co-guardians, finding that the reasons for the original appointment had not changed and that it was in A.E.E.'s best interests to remain under their guardianship.The paternal grandparents appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the juvenile court erred in its decision, citing H.H.'s conviction and alleging false testimony by the maternal aunt and uncle. They also requested a presumption against appointing family members of a parent convicted of murdering the other parent as guardians. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the juvenile court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the denial of the motion to modify the guardianship, concluding that the paternal grandparents failed to prove that removal or modification of the guardianship was in A.E.E.'s best interests. View "Interest of A.E.E." on Justia Law

Ryan Roberts and Briana Gebell are the biological parents of a child born in January 2016. In August 2016, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed a dependency, neglect, and abuse (DNA) petition against both parents due to Mother’s mental health issues and criminal charges, and Father’s substance abuse. The Bracken District Court placed the child in the temporary custody of Debbie and Nick Appleman, Father’s paternal cousins. After several incidents involving Father’s substance abuse and criminal behavior, the district court granted full custody of the child to the Applemans in July 2019.Mother filed a motion in June 2021 in the Bracken Circuit Court to regain custody or obtain visitation. The circuit court granted her supervised visitation, which was later changed to unsupervised visitation. In December 2022, Mother sought sole custody, but the circuit court denied her request, finding that she had waived her superior right to custody by being absent for most of the child’s life and that continued custody with the Applemans was in the child’s best interest.The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s decision, concluding that the record did not support a finding of waiver. The Applemans did not participate in the appeal. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, agreeing that the Applemans needed to demonstrate Mother’s unfitness or waiver of her superior rights. However, the Supreme Court reversed the part of the decision that granted immediate custody to Mother, remanding the case for further proceedings to apply the correct legal standard in determining custody. View "APPLEMAN V. GEBELL" on Justia Law

Donna Miller Bruenger, the ex-wife of the late Coleman Miller, filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Courtenay Ann Miller, Coleman’s daughter, seeking entitlement to Coleman’s Federal Employee’s Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) benefits. Coleman had failed to designate a beneficiary for his FEGLI benefits before his death, and MetLife distributed the benefits to Courtenay. Bruenger argued that Coleman’s legal obligation under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to assign her the benefits should prevail.The Jefferson Circuit Court ruled against Bruenger, concluding that federal law precluded her claim because Coleman’s employer did not receive the QDRO before his death. Bruenger’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals as untimely, and the court also imposed sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. Bruenger then sought relief under CR 60.02, which the trial court granted, allowing her to refile the appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the refiled appeal as frivolous and awarded attorney’s fees to Courtenay.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and determined that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the CR 60.02 relief. The Supreme Court held that RAP 11(B) authorizes the award of attorney’s fees as a sanction for frivolous appeals but found that the imposition of sanctions in this case violated due process because Bruenger was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction but reversed the sanctions imposed by the Court of Appeals. View "BRUENGER V. MILLER" on Justia Law

The respondent, Justin Nadeau (husband), appealed the final decree of divorce from the petitioner, Michelle Nadeau (wife), issued by the Circuit Court. The husband argued that the trial court erred in dividing the marital estate and denying his request for alimony. Additionally, the husband and his parents, James and Gail Nadeau, contended that the trial court erred in adding the parents to the action for discovery purposes only.The Circuit Court found that the parties had a wedding ceremony in June 2009, but the officiant's license had lapsed, leading to a second civil ceremony in July 2009. Before the June ceremony, the parties signed a prenuptial agreement. The husband owned properties in Rye and Portsmouth, which were transferred to a trust managed by his father before the second ceremony. The wife discovered these transfers in 2012 during an investigation by the Attorney General’s Office. The Rye property was sold in 2013 or 2014, and the State Street property was sold during the divorce proceedings. The wife filed for divorce in May 2020, and the trial court joined the husband’s parents for discovery purposes due to the husband's non-compliance with discovery orders.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court held that the trial court did not err in treating the State Street and Rye properties as part of the marital estate, as the transfers were likely fraudulent and diminished the marital estate's value. The court also found that the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion in awarding the wife the proceeds from her personal injury settlement. Additionally, the court concluded that the trial court's decision to join the husband’s parents for discovery purposes did not affect the outcome of the case, as the adverse inferences were drawn from the husband's own actions. View "In the Matter of Nadeau & Nadeau" on Justia Law

The case involves S.G., the mother of four children, aged eleven, nine, seven, and five, who were removed from her custody due to ongoing domestic violence by their father. S.G. appealed a December 20, 2023 order denying her motion to appoint a psychological expert to perform a bonding study under Evidence Code section 730. This request was made before an 18-month review hearing while she was still receiving reunification services. The juvenile court denied the motion, partly on the ground that it was improper to appoint an expert to aid S.G. in her defense and possibly because the request was deemed unripe during ongoing reunification services.The juvenile court initially declared the three older children dependents on February 27, 2020, due to domestic violence, allowing them to remain with S.G. with family maintenance services. On July 19, 2022, the youngest child was also declared a dependent. On September 29, 2022, all four children were removed from S.G.'s custody and placed in foster care. The court sustained a supplemental petition alleging continued contact between the parents and further domestic violence. Reunification services were ordered for S.G. but bypassed for the father. At the six-month and twelve-month review hearings, S.G.'s services were extended.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that a parent may request, and the court must consider, the appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in dependency proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying S.G.'s motion on the grounds that it was improper to aid her defense and possibly because it was premature. The appellate court vacated the order as to the two older children and remanded the matter for a new hearing, while dismissing the appeals concerning the two younger children as moot. View "In re P.S." on Justia Law