Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The parties were married in 2004 and separated in April 2023. They initiated divorce proceedings, and after a hearing in April 2024, the family division of the Superior Court approved stipulated agreements on parental rights, contact, and some marital assets. The court then heard evidence on contested issues, including the division of the husband’s retirement accounts and spousal maintenance. In May 2024, the court issued a final divorce order, finding the current balances of the husband's three retirement accounts and providing for an equitable division of marital property, with the wife to receive 50% of the value of the husband's accounts as of the date of separation.After the final order, both parties filed motions to amend: the husband sought credit for maintenance payments under Rule 59, which the court granted. Later, the wife moved under Rule 60, arguing that the property division reflected an intent to use the balances as of the date of the final hearing, not separation. The husband responded, challenging the motion's timeliness and arguing that the wife failed to comply with the dispute-resolution procedure. The Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Family Division, granted the wife's motion and amended the order to reflect the values as of the date of the final hearing, reasoning this correction merely conformed the order to the court’s intent.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed whether the lower court erred in amending the divorce order under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). The Supreme Court held that the court’s correction was proper under Rule 60(a), as it reflected the court’s original intent and was a clerical error rather than a substantive change. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended divorce order and found any alleged procedural errors in handling the wife’s motion harmless, given the court’s authority to correct such errors at any time. View "Warner v. Warner" on Justia Law

A husband and wife entered into a premarital agreement before their 2018 marriage, which set forth a comprehensive division of assets in case of divorce. The agreement categorized both parties’ assets and anticipated inheritances as separate property, except for their marital home. It specified that, upon divorce, the wife would receive 50% of the increase in the appraised value of the marital home, paid by the husband in installments. The agreement also required proportional contributions to living expenses, allocation of taxes, and provided for attorney’s fees if either party breached the agreement.After their separation in 2021, the husband filed for divorce in 2023. Both parties sought enforcement of the premarital agreement in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Family Division. The wife moved to enforce the agreement, including her share of the marital home’s appreciation and attorney’s fees, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over the home designated as separate property. The husband claimed offsets for damages the wife allegedly caused to the home and for her failure to pay household expenses and taxes. The family division granted the wife’s motion, enforced the agreement in her favor, and awarded attorney’s fees, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the husband’s counterclaims, which it said belonged in civil court.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the family division had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the premarital agreement—including claims of breach—within the context of divorce proceedings under Vermont statutes. The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case to the family division to determine whether the wife materially breached the premarital agreement and to consider appropriate remedies, if any, consistent with principles governing such contracts. View "Gade v. Gade" on Justia Law

Lily and Nikhil Patel were married in 2002 and have two children, both born in Georgia. The family moved to California in late 2019, and then to Georgia in July 2023, where the children attended school and the family searched for a new home. In December 2023, Lily took the children to California to visit her family, with plans to return to Georgia, but a disagreement arose regarding the children’s return. This led to conflicting claims by each parent about the circumstances of their separation.In January 2024, Lily filed for a domestic violence restraining order and requested custody of the children in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, which issued temporary orders. She also filed a petition for legal separation in California, requesting custody. Meanwhile, Nikhil filed for divorce in Georgia. Nikhil moved to dismiss Lily’s custody request on jurisdictional grounds under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and separately moved to dismiss Lily’s petition for legal separation, arguing that California Family Code section 2345 requires the consent of both spouses for legal separation and he did not consent.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three reviewed the family court’s dismissal of Lily’s petition for legal separation. The appellate court held that, under Family Code section 2345, a judgment of legal separation cannot be rendered without the consent of both parties unless the judgment is taken by default. The court found that the family court had inherent authority to dismiss the petition when the statutory consent requirement could not be met. The order dismissing Lily’s petition for legal separation was affirmed, and the court clarified that the family court did not err in dismissing the petition under the record presented. View "In re Marriage of Patel" on Justia Law

The case involves a parent, D.A.D., whose parental rights regarding his child, G.M.H., were challenged following a period of incarceration. D.A.D. and the child’s mother, K.R.H., separated in June 2022. Shortly after, D.A.D. was arrested and later convicted of possessing child pornography, resulting in nearly three years of incarceration. During his imprisonment, D.A.D. made limited attempts to communicate with G.M.H., sending only a few letters and making a small number of phone calls. The divorce judgment provided for supervised parenting time after his release, contingent on D.A.D. providing specific information to K.R.H., which he failed to do.A petition for termination of parental rights and for adoption was filed by K.R.H. and her spouse, D.A.H., in April 2025. The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, held a hearing and found by clear and convincing evidence that D.A.D. had abandoned G.M.H. and that his conduct, faults, and neglect justified termination of his parental rights. The court cited his lack of meaningful contact and support, both before and during his incarceration, and concluded that there was no reasonable expectation his behavior would change.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its discretionary decision for abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the district court’s finding of abandonment was supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous. The court also determined that the statutory definition of abandonment, as applied, did not violate D.A.D.’s constitutional rights, as it required consideration of whether failures to communicate or support were without justifiable cause, including incarceration. The order terminating D.A.D.’s parental rights was affirmed. View "Adoption of G.M.H." on Justia Law

Brian Jessop and Lisa Combs are the parents of a young child, B.J.J. After their relationship ended, Lisa moved with B.J.J. from Utah to Rapid City, South Dakota. Brian filed a petition seeking parenting time consistent with the South Dakota Parenting Guidelines, while Lisa opposed unsupervised visitation and requested sole custody and only supervised contact for Brian, citing concerns about his alleged ties to the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) and claims of past abuse. Throughout the proceedings, Lisa maintained that Brian’s involvement with the FLDS posed risks to B.J.J., and she also alleged that Brian had raped her, resulting in the child’s conception. Brian denied the allegations of abuse and FLDS involvement, asserting that he had left the church years earlier.The custody matter was heard in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota. Prior to trial, Lisa unsuccessfully sought a continuance due to an unavailable witness and later moved to exclude rebuttal testimony from Brian’s wife, which was also denied. After a bench trial, the circuit court rejected Lisa’s rape allegations and found insufficient evidence that Brian was a current member or follower of the FLDS. The custody evaluator recommended primary physical custody to Lisa but supported unsupervised visitation for Brian. The court awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Lisa, and unsupervised parenting time to Brian, following the Parenting Guidelines.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s rulings. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lisa’s motions for continuance and exclusion of rebuttal testimony, nor did it err in its findings regarding Brian’s lack of FLDS involvement and the rape allegation. The Supreme Court also affirmed the denial of Lisa’s request for attorney fees and declined to award appellate attorney fees. View "Jessop v. Combs" on Justia Law

Kolstad and Claussen are the unmarried parents of two minor children, having lived together for about four years before separating in early 2024. Claussen also has primary residential responsibility for a child from a previous marriage. After their separation, Kolstad initiated a legal action seeking primary residential responsibility and child support for their two children, while Claussen counterclaimed for the same relief. The district court held a bench trial in October 2024, during which Claussen requested either primary or equal residential responsibility.Following the trial, the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, awarded Kolstad and Claussen equal residential responsibility for their children and ordered Claussen to pay Kolstad $157 per month in child support. The district court found that Claussen’s change in employment was motivated by a desire to parent his children and not to reduce his child support obligation. Kolstad appealed, arguing that the district court failed to make adequate findings regarding two statutory best interest factors: the developmental needs of the children and evidence of domestic violence.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and applied the clearly erroneous standard to the district court’s factual findings. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s determination that Claussen’s employment change was not intended to reduce his child support obligation. However, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment in part, finding that the district court did not make sufficient findings or provide adequate explanation regarding best interest factors (c) (the children’s developmental needs and the parents’ ability to meet those needs) and (j) (evidence of domestic violence). The Supreme Court remanded the case for further findings and clarification on those factors, instructing the district court to explain its reasoning and to clarify whether the statutory presumption regarding domestic violence applies. View "Kolstad v. Claussen" on Justia Law

The essential facts of this case involve an individual who was convicted in Mississippi state court for failing to pay child support, an offense punishable by up to five years in prison but for which he ultimately received only probation. After repaying the owed child support and completing probation, the individual was later indicted under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by anyone previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The predicate offense for the federal charge was the non-payment of child support.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the defendant twice moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him, among other constitutional challenges. The district court denied both motions. The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the Second Amendment issue, leading to this appeal before the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that, under the historical inquiry required by the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, there is no historical tradition supporting the permanent disarmament of a person convicted solely of non-payment of child support, particularly where the debt had been repaid and probation completed. The court rejected the government’s analogy between debtors and thieves, noting that founding-era practices treated debtors differently, allowing for temporary disarmament only until the debt was paid. The Fifth Circuit therefore held that the application of § 922(g)(1) to the defendant violated the Second Amendment and reversed the conviction, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Cockerham" on Justia Law

A married couple in Montana accumulated substantial assets and debts over a 31-year marriage, primarily through farming and related businesses. When the marriage ended, disputes arose over the valuation and distribution of assets, especially a 25% interest in a family ranch partnership held by the husband. The wife, who had managed bookkeeping, sought full financial disclosure, which the husband resisted. The court ultimately found the wife’s expert valuation of the partnership more credible and ordered an equalization payment schedule requiring the husband to pay the wife monthly installments over 17 years, with a provision allowing transfer of the partnership interest if payments were not made.Following the initial decree, the husband failed to make any payments, attempted to unilaterally transfer the partnership interest, and also moved funds from accounts awarded to the wife. During post-judgment proceedings in the Seventh Judicial District Court, the wife uncovered delays, asset transfers, and changes in the partnership agreement that reduced the value and control associated with the 25% interest. The husband argued he had a choice between payments or the transfer, but the court found his actions obstructive and not in compliance with its orders. The court found the partnership interest had been materially altered, making it inequitable for the wife to accept in satisfaction of the judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s rulings, holding that the husband was properly found in contempt for failing to comply with the decree and for obstructive conduct. The Supreme Court also upheld the District Court’s modification of the property distribution, striking the provision allowing transfer of the partnership interest and ordering restoration of funds to the wife. The Court concluded these actions were within the District Court’s equitable powers and supported by the evidence. View "In re Marriage of Steinbeisser" on Justia Law

A married couple underwent in vitro fertilization and created two frozen embryos, signing a written agreement with the IVF provider that specified options for disposing of the embryos in the event of legal separation or divorce. The agreement offered several choices, including discarding the embryos, donating them, or making them available to one partner if desired. The couple selected and initialed the option stating the embryos would be “made available to the partner if he/she wishes.” After the couple separated, the husband sought to have the embryos discarded, while the wife wanted to use them to attempt pregnancy.In the Superior Court of Orange County, the husband filed a motion to discard the embryos, and the wife requested immediate rights to them. Following an evidentiary hearing at which both parties acknowledged the agreement and their signatures, the court found the contract valid, clear, and unambiguous, and awarded the embryos to the wife. The court issued a minute order and later a formal order reflecting this decision.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, determined the order was not directly appealable but exercised its discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. Reviewing the IVF agreement independently, the appellate court held that when parties have entered a valid contract specifying the disposition of embryos in the event of divorce, that agreement governs. The court found the contract’s language unambiguous and concluded the embryos should be made available to the wife, as specified. The court further found no violation of public policy or constitutional rights and denied the husband’s petition, affirming that the wife was entitled to the embryos under the contract. View "Pham v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Following a divorce, a father was granted supervised visitation with his two minor children. The supervision was to be conducted by a licensed therapist selected by the mother, as the parents could not agree on a supervisor. The therapist, after supervising some visits, suspended the father’s visitation, stating that the sessions could not proceed successfully unless the father admitted to charges of kidnapping and neglect and recognized their impact on his children.The father subsequently filed suit against the therapist, bringing three claims, including one for reckless infliction of emotional distress stemming from the suspension of visitation. In the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, the therapist moved for summary judgment. The father conceded two of his claims, leaving only the emotional distress claim regarding the suspension of visitation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the therapist, finding that the claim was barred by the litigation privilege and quasi-judicial immunity, and further concluding that the alleged conduct did not support a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed only the emotional distress claim related to the suspension of visitation. Applying a de novo standard of review, the appellate court held that quasi-judicial immunity bars the claim. The court determined that the therapist was performing a judicial function delegated by the court—specifically, the authority to suspend visitation under the California Standards of Judicial Administration. The opinion found this function to be indistinguishable from those protected by quasi-judicial immunity in prior precedents. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the therapist. View "Vergara v. Ouse" on Justia Law