Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, W.C. appealed a domestic violence final order of protection, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that his conduct constituted a credible, present threat to the safety of plaintiff, L.C., because one of the incidents of abuse upon which the trial court relied was directed at her aunt. Defendant also argued the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by issuing protective orders that were broader than necessary to bring about cessation of the abuse. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the order. View "L.C. v. W.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court vacating as void ab initio a portion of an earlier divorce decree that had ordered Appellant to pay child support because the court issuing the support award never acquired personal jurisdiction over Father, holding that there was no error.The circuit court concluded that the divorce court did not have personal jurisdiction over Appellant when it issued the final divorce decree, and therefore, the portion of the final decree order an in personam award of child support was void ab initio. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the divorce court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over Appellant pursuant to Appellee's requested service by order of publication; and (2) therefore, the provisions of the divorce decree awarding child support were void ab initio. View "Evans v. Evans" on Justia Law

Respondent Jeffrey Bart (Husband) appealed, and petitioner Lura Sanborn (Wife) cross-appealed, a final decree of divorce. Husband also appealed the trial court’s order, issued after this appeal was filed, granting Wife’s motion to enforce the temporary decree as to the payment of property taxes on the marital home. The parties were married in 2005 and had one child. Wife worked as a librarian at a private school; Husband was involved in the operation of a family-owned candy business (GSCS) established by his grandfather in 1927. At the time the final decree was issued, Husband was the controlling member of two limited liability companies that owned and operated GSCS and the property on which one of its stores was located. CMJ Associates, LLC (CMJ) was the entity that owned the real property housing one of GSCS’s stores and several residential apartments. Husband argued the trial court erred in: (1) issuing a child support order that provided for “automatic modifications of child support in the future”; (2) adjusting the property distribution to account for marital funds used by Husband for his legal fees, but failing to make the same adjustment for Wife; and (3) modifying the final decree after an appeal had been filed. Wife argued the trial court erred in: (1) determining Husband’s gross income for purposes of child support; (2) dividing the marital estate unequally in favor of Husband; and (3) awarding final alimony with an amount and duration inconsistent with its own findings. After review of Husband's arguments, the New Hampshire Supreme Court: (1) affirmed as to the "escalation clause" allowing automatic modifications of child support; (2) vacated the property settlement for reconsideration; and (3) agreed with Wife that the order was a "was a status quo preservation ruling" within the trial court’s jurisdiction. As to Wife's arguments, the Supreme Court: (1) affirmed as to the calculation of Husband's income; (2) affirmed as to the division of the marital estate; and (3) concurred that the alimony award appeared to be inconsistent with some of the trial court's factual findings. Judgment was therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Lura Sanborn & Jeffrey Bart" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting relief to Melissa Lynn Fuller from the 2016 final decree of dissolution of the marriage of Melissa and Bradley Dean Fuller, holding that the district court erred in setting aside the final decree of dissolution on the ground of perjury under Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-253(5).The district court concluded that the failure to the parties to disclose their jointly owned business to the court, which they determined that they would settled after the divorce, violated the law requiring full disclosure of assets, debts, income, and expenses. The court granted Melissa's requested relief by raising sua sponte the issue of mutual perjury under section 40-4-253(5), concluding that significant nondisclosures in final declarations of marital assets are conditions that justified the court to reopen the final decree. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the parties chose not to include their jointly owned businesses in their disclosures, the district court erred by reopening the judgment on that basis. View "In re Marriage of Fuller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals to the extent it determined that an order of the domestic relations court had improperly modified a divorce decree and was void, holding that any error in the domestic relations court in exercising its jurisdiction in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 3105.171(I) rendered the order voidable, not void.Appellee moved to vacate an order adopted by the domestic relations court that set forth how his federal retirement benefits would be shared with Appellant, his former spouse, asserting that the order had improperly modified the divorce decree's division of marital property. The domestic relations court denied the motion to vacate. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that the domestic relations court lacked jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in determining that the order in this case was void because it modified the prior divorce decree. Rather, the error in the exercise of the court's subject-matter jurisdiction rendered the error voidable, not void ab initio. View "Ostanek v. Ostanek" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that where there are two legal parents, both legal parents must consent to and foster a third party's formation and establishment of a parent-like relationship with a child under the first factor of the test set forth in In re Custody of H.S.H.-K., 533 N.W.2d 419 (Wis. 1995), adopted by this Court in Conover v. Conover, 146 A.3d 433 (Md. 2016).E.N. was the biological mother and D.D. was the biological father of two minor children. When D.D. entered into a relationship with T.R. the children moved in with the couple. T.R. later filed a complaint seeking sole legal and physical custody of the children. The circuit court granted T.R.'s complaint for custody, concluding that T.R. was a de facto parent of the children. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) to establish de facto parenthood where there are two legal parents, a prospective de facto parent must demonstrate that both legal parents consented to and fostered a parent-like relationship with a child, or that a non-consenting legal parent is an unfit parent or exceptional circumstances exist; and (2) the circuit court erred in concluding that T.R. was a de facto parent and in granting her joint legal custody and sole physical custody. View "E.N. v. T.R." on Justia Law

Charles W. Sr. (Father) challenged a juvenile court's finding regarding his children Charles W. Jr. (Jr.), S.W., and R.W., that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply. He contended there was an insufficient inquiry of the mother’s ancestry. The children’s parents have a history of substance abuse. In a prior dependency case, the parents admitted to their use of methamphetamine. In January 2019, the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply in the proceeding. In July 2020, after completing her reunification services, the children’s mother (Mother) was granted sole custody of Jr. and S.W. Father did not complete his reunification services. Several months later in late September, R.W. was born to Mother and Father. In December 2020, police officers responded to the hotel room where the family was living and seized a large quantity of illicit drugs, which were accessible to the three young children. Both parents were arrested on drug-related charges, and they admitted to using drugs. Mother told the assigned social worker she had Yaqui and Aztec heritage but she “already went through the Court process,” and the court had found ICWA did not apply. Days later, the state filed dependency petitions on behalf of all three children; the Agency submitted a completed form ICWA-010(A), indicating Mother’s report of “Yaqui and Aztec Native American heritage” and Father’s denial of Indian heritage. The Agency also filled out a “field worksheet for updating client demographics.” On this worksheet, as to ICWA applicability (“ICWA?”), the Agency marked “No” for the two older children and made no marking for R.W. Further, for each child, a tribal affiliation of “Sioux” was denoted. At a dispositional hearing at which mother and her counsel attended, Native American ancestry was denied: “I spoke to my client this morning. She has no Native American ancestry. She does have some ancestry through central Mexico.” The court went on to “reconfirm ICWA does not apply at this time based on the information provided to the court and the reaffirmation of no Native American ancestry as stated and will be provided on the 020 form by Mother’s counsel." The Court of Appeal disagreed with Father's contention that the juvenile court and Agency did not make a sufficient inquiry as to the children's ancestry before finding the ICWA did not apply. "[G]iven the prior ICWA finding regarding this family and the parents’ unequivocal denials of Indian ancestry, we do not find it reasonably probable that further inquiry based on the record before us would yield a different result." View "In re Charles W., Jr." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's order changing the permanency plan for Mother and Father's four children from reunification to adoption, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the Department of Family Services (DFS) provided reasonable efforts to reunify the children.After an evidentiary permanency hearing the juvenile court found that reunification with Mother and Father was not in the children's best interests and that reasonable efforts to reunify were no longer required because they had been unsuccessful. The court then changed the plan to adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient for the juvenile court to conclude that reasonable efforts to reunify the children with Mother and Father had been made and no further efforts were required; and (2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption even though specialized care was not provided to the parents. View "AW v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court denying Mother's second motion for relief from the judgment of the district court terminating her parental rights to her four children, holding that Mother made a prima facie showing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial phase and post-judgment phase of the case.Mother did not appear for the termination hearing, and trial counsel was also absent when the hearing began. After Mother's parental rights were terminated trial counsel moved to withdraw from the case, and interim counsel was appointed to represent Mother. Appellate counsel filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief of judgment, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and interim counsel. The trial court denied the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) Mother made a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel at both the trial phase of the case and the post-judgment phase; and (2) Mother's Rule 60(b) motion was both proper and timely in light of the extraordinary circumstances presented in this case. View "In re Children of Kacee S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the trial court granting Plaintiff's motion to vacate an arbitration award and denying Defendant's corresponding application to confirm the award, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority or manifestly disregard the law, but the inclusion of issues related to child support in the award was improper.Before the parties were married they executed a premarital agreement. Years later, Plaintiff brought this action to dissolve the marriage, and the parties executed a binding agreement to arbitrate the dissolution action. At issue was the validity of the arbitrator's award dividing the equity in the parties' marital home and assigning responsibility for certain expenses related to child support. The trial court granted Plaintiff's motion to vacate the portion of the arbitration award. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court erred in ruling that the arbitrator's award exceed the scope of the parties' submission; (2) any error in distributing the equity in the marital home would not permit a court to vacate the arbitration award; and (3) because Connecticut law prohibits the inclusion of issues related to child support in arbitration awards, this portion of the award is reversed. View "Blondeau v. Baltierra" on Justia Law