Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming the order of the family court, which crafted a reunification plan with the goal of allowing grandparent of visitation to Respondents, the paternal grandparents of the six children in this case, holding that Petitioner did not meet her burden to demonstrate error.Upon her divorce from the children's father, Petitioner was granted full custody of the children. In the presence of all the children, the maternal grandfather shot and killed the father and then shot and killed himself. Respondents subsequently filed a petition for grandparent visitation. After a hearing, the family court ordered grandparent visitation. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of showing that the judgment below was erroneous. View "In re Grandparent Visitation of L.M." on Justia Law

Appellants Taylor Hudson (Mother) and Cody Hudson (Father) appealed a trial court's judgments terminating their parental rights to their biological children, K.H., C.H., E.H., and C.H. Both judgments were entered on separate jury verdicts finding that clear and convincing evidence supported each parent's “heinous and shocking physical abuse” on another child of Father. After review on rehearing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held: (1) admitting evidence of State's pending criminal child abuse charges against Parents; and (2) giving a jury instruction that listed the criminal charges to support State's amended petition for immediate termination of parental rights was “so inherently prejudicial” that it violated Parents' right to a fair trial. The judgments were reversed, and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "In the Matter of K. H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court amending a spousal maintenance award granting in favor of Respondent, Appellant's former wife, holding that the district court abused its discretion in deciding it could not consider the principal of certain cash gifts as an available source of income for spousal maintenance.After almost five years of dissolution-related court proceedings, Appellant moved to eliminate or amend a spousal maintenance award granted in favor of Respondent on the ground that there had been a substantial change of circumstances making the initial award "unreasonable and unfair." The motion stemmed, in part, from two cash gifts given to Appellant by her parents after the divorce totaling $500,000. The district court concluded that the spousal maintenance statute prohibited it from considering the principal of the cash gifts as a financial resource available for Appellant's self-support. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that post-dissolution gifts received by a maintenance recipient are a financial resource a district court may consider under the spousal maintenance statute. View "Honke v. Honke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court naming Aunt and Uncle managing conservators of parents' two children, naming Mother and Father possessory conservators, and stating that, in the absence of mutual agreement, Mother could have supervised visitation with the children at the discretion of the managing conservator, holding that there was no error.In affirming, the court of appeals determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the terms of the visitation order, that the terms of the order were permissible upon a finding that they were in the best interest of the children, and denying Mother's constitutional challenge to Tex. Fam. Code 262.201(o). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the trial court could have reasonably concluded that a restriction on Mother's right of access was in the children's best interest, there was not abuse of discretion; and (2) Mother's constitutional challenges were rendered moot by the trial court's issuance of a final order. View "In re J.J.R.S." on Justia Law

In 2018, Mother filed a petition for dissolution of the parties’ marriage. The parties resided together with their six children, ages three-13. Mother was a stay-at-home parent and the primary caregiver. Mother stated that Father had abused her throughout their marriage. For six months, the family continued to reside together. In August 2019, Mother filed a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) application seeking orders forbidding Father from committing abuse, compelling him to stay away and to move out of their shared residence, and to be restrained from traveling with their children.Father was ordered not to abuse Mother and to stay at least five yards away from her. The court denied Mother’s other requests pending a hearing. Father denied committing any violence, claiming that Mother harassed him. The DVRO matter was heard over several days in late 2019. The court ordered Mother to move out of the home. Father was denied visitation. Mother, at various points, was living in a motel and out of her car with the children. The trial court found insufficient evidence to grant a DVRO.The court of appeal reversed. The trial court erroneously refused to consider evidence of abuse committed following the filing of the DVRO application, failed to properly evaluate the evidence that it heard, and improperly found that physical separation alone could substitute for the legal protections afforded by a restraining order. View "Marriage of F.M. & M.M." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a custody dispute between the mother of an eleven-year-old boy and the boy’s paternal grandparents. “John” had been living in his grandparents’ home for about six years at the time of the judgment, and the chancery court ultimately found that John’s mother had deserted him and that it was in John’s best interest that his grandparents be awarded custody. The Mississippi Supreme Court did not find that judgment to be an abuse of discretion, so it affirmed the chancery court’s judgment. View "Summers v. Gros" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the adoption order of the circuit court, holding that the circuit court erred in determining that Father's consent was not required in the adoption of his two minor children to their natural mother and her husband.Under Ark. Code Ann. 9-9-207(a)(2)(ii) consent is not required of a parent of a child in the custody of another if that period, for a period of at least one year, has failed significantly to provide for the care and support of the child as required by law or judicial decree. Mother and her husband sought to adopt the two minor children of Mother and Father, alleging that Father's consent was not required under section 9-9-207(a)(2)(ii). The circuit court granted the adoption petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that Father's consent to the adoption was not required based on the failure to provide for the care and support of the children for a period of one year. View "Plymale v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's termination of Mother's parental rights to her infant child, who died during the pendency of these abuse and neglect proceedings, holding that W. Va. Code 49-4-604(c)(6) does not permit termination of parental rights following the death of the child who is the subject of the underlying abuse and neglect petition.Mother entered a voluntary stipulation of adjudication admitting that she neglected the infant by subjecting it to drug abuse and/or a drug-endangered environment and by using and abusing alcohol and drugs. The infant subsequently died. Mother moved to dismiss the petition against her. The circuit court denied the motion and later terminated Mother's parental rights to the child. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the death of the only child named in an abuse and neglect petition requires its post-adjudicatory dismissal. View "In re A.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the circuit court affirming the family court's determination that Respondent was the legal father of Child, holding that the circuit court erred in upholding the family court's paternity determination.The family court concluded that Respondent was the legal parent of Child and conducted both a de facto adoption and de facto termination of parental rights. In affirming the determination of the family court, the circuit court upheld the family court's refusal to admit DNA test results demonstrating that Petitioner was Child's biological father. The Supreme Court vacated the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case, holding (1) the lower courts erred in their decision to disregard the paternity test results; and (2) to the extent that both a de facto adoption and termination of parental rights occurred in family court, the court acted beyond its jurisdiction. View "Corey D. v. Michelle H." on Justia Law

M.M.’s (juvenile) Father challenged the superior court’s refusal of his appeal of a circuit court decision on a neglect petition brought by the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). Father argued that the amendment to RSA 169-C:28 (effective July 1, 2020), eliminating the right to appeal final dispositional orders in abuse and neglect proceedings to the superior court for de novo review, did not apply to his case. Father also appealed the circuit court’s final dispositional order directly to the New Hampshire Supreme Court pursuant to that amended statute, arguing that the circuit court should not have considered and issued orders on DCYF’s neglect petition and, alternatively, that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of neglect. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the July 2020 amendment to RSA 169-C:28 applied to Father’s case, barring his appeal to the superior court for de novo review. In its direct review of Father’s appeal of the circuit court’s final dispositional order, the Court concluded the circuit court did not err in considering and issuing orders on DCYF’s neglect petition. The circuit court’s finding of neglect against Father was also affirmed. View "In re M.M." on Justia Law