Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal from a juvenile court order dismissing a supplemental petition filed after the court terminated a guardianship over which the court had expressly retained jurisdiction, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction.On appeal, the State argued that Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(8) required it to file a supplemental - or second - petition after the guardianship was terminated in order to reinstate the juvenile court's jurisdiction over the children. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the juvenile court's dismissal of the second petition had no effect on the State's ability to continue to assert its rights under its original petition; (2) the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over the children; and (3) because the State's substantial rights in the proceedings were not substantially affected by the court's dismissal of the second petition, this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction. View "In re Interest of Mekhi S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the conclusion of the Buffalo County Court that the Phelps County Court lacked jurisdiction to transfer this case to Buffalo County and dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Jodi Ronhovde and Austin Peterson were in a sexual relationship before Jodi gave birth to a child. Jodi subsequently married and joined her husband in seeking a stepparent adoption. The complaint was filed in the Phelps County Court, and Jodi identified Austin as the child's biological father. Austin then motioned for a change of venue to Buffalo County, which the Phelps County Court granted. Jodi filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Phelps County Court never had jurisdiction and, therefore, could not have transferred the case. The Buffalo County Court agreed. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-104.05(4)(a) did not confer jurisdiction; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in reversing the dismissal of Austin's complaint by the Buffalo County Court. View "Peterson v. Jacobitz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court dismissing this juvenile case, holding that Mother's opening brief misstated the record and failed to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.Mother had six children, four of which were minors. The two fathers of three of the minor children were involved in this case. Due to allegations of abuse and neglect, the juvenile court ordered the children to be placed into protective custody. The three children were placed with their fathers and the fourth was placed in a foster home. Later, the district court granted the fathers temporary custody of their children, and the fathers moved for discharge of the three children from the juvenile court action. The juvenile court granted the fathers' motion and dismissed the juvenile case. Mother filed a notice of appeal, listing twelve orders from which she was appealing. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the juvenile court's dismissal order because Mother's brief misstated the record and failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. View "In re FP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that the divorce decree at issue included provisions that, taken as a whole, could be interpreted to suggest that the parties contemplated that alimony would continue upon remarriage, holding that the presumption that alimony terminates upon remarriage was not rebutted in this case.Melvin and Janette McQuarrie divorced in 2008. The district court entered a divorce decree detailing the terms of their mediated stipulation for divorce, under which Melvin was required to pay alimony to Janette. The alimony provisions of the decree did not explicitly address the effect of Janette's remarriage. After Janette remarried, Melvin filed a petition to modify the parties decree, asserting that the remarriage justified a termination of the alimony obligation. The district court denied the motion, holding that the decree language specifically provided that the alimony/child support payments would continue beyond remarriage. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because there was no specific, express provision in the decree that alimony would continue upon remarriage, Melvin's alimony obligation terminated by operation of law. View "McQuarrie v. McQuarrie" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Mother's parental rights to her four minor children pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 15-7-7(a)(2)(vii) and 15-7-7(a)(3), holding that this Court will not disturb the trial justice's finding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children.The trial justice ruled that it was in the best interests of the children that Mother's parental rights be terminated because the child had been in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) for at least twelve months, Mother had been offered services to correct the situation leading to the children's placement, there was no a substantial probability that the children could safely be returned to Mother's care, and that Mother had exhibited behaviors seriously detrimental to the children rendering her future care for the children improbable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice adequately protected Mother's due process rights by ensuring that she was represented at all times; (2) the trial justice did not err when he found that DCYF made reasonable efforts to address the underlying issues leading to the termination of Mother's parental rights; and (3) the termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Manuel P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the court of appeals affirming an order of the circuit court granting Father unsupervised overnight visitation with two minor daughters, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by expanding Father's visitation.After Father confessed to four incidents of inappropriately touching his daughter born from a prior marriage, Mother filed for divorce. The trial court concluded that Father had sexually abused his daughter and ordered supervised visitation for eight hours each Saturday. The court granted sole custody to Mother. Father later filed a third motion for joint custody and increased, unrestricted visitation. The trial court granted Father overnight visitation with the children every other weekend. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower courts utilized an incorrect legal standard, thereby requiring reversal. View "Moore v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court denying Mother's motion to relocate with the parties' minor child and vacated the order granting Father's motion to modify child support, holding that the trial justice erred by failing to consider the circumstances concerning the child's needs or Father's ability to pay child support.The parties entered into a property settlement agreement, which was incorporated by reference but not merged into the final decree, that provided for joint custody of the child with physical placement to be with Mother. Father was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $1,471 per month. Mother later filed a motion to relocate with the child to New Jersey. Father objected and filed a motion to modify child support. The trial justice denied Mother's motion to relocate and granted Father's motion to modify. The Supreme Court held (1) the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in denying Mother's motion to relocate; and (2) the trial justice's reasoning in granting Father's motion for child support was not proper. View "Andrade v. Andrade" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order entered by the circuit court terminating Father's improvement period and terminating his parental rights to his son, M.O., holding that there was no error on the part of the circuit court.On appeal, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services and the child's guardian ad litem both argued that termination of Father's parental rights and his improvement period was required even though he complied earlier with services provided during his improvement period. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed, holding (1) when considering the entirety of the circumstances, Father failed sufficiently improve to justify the return of M.O. to his home; and (2) the circuit court did not err in concluding that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could substantially be corrected in the near future and that it was in the best interests of the child that Father's parental rights be terminated. View "In re M.O." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that social workers, and their approving supervisors, in the Department of Children and Families who attest to facts in sworn affidavits as part of care and protection proceedings commenced by the Department in the juvenile court pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 119, 24 are entitled to absolute immunity in these circumstances.Plaintiff brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a social worker with the Department, alleging that the social worker intentionally misrepresented facts in a sworn affidavit filed in support of a care and protection petition in the juvenile court. Plaintiff further alleged that the social worker's area supervisor (together, with the social worker, Defendants) was liable because she had approved the social worker's actions. Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that they were entitled to absolute immunity. A superior court judge allowed the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Defendants were entitled to absolute immunity under the circumstances of this case. View "C.M. v. Commissioner of Department of Children & Families" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the final order of the circuit court terminating Mother's rights to her infant son in an abuse and neglect proceeding, holding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that the child was abused and/or neglected. The petition stated that Mother and the child were residents of Tazewell County, Virginia but that the circuit court had jurisdiction because West Virginia was the home state of the child at the commencement of this proceeding. When DHHR was granted emergency legal custody of the child, Mother returned home to Virginia. The circuit court adjudicated Mother as an abusing parent and subsequently terminated her rights. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment, holding that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding. View "In re Z.H." on Justia Law