Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A child was born to Anthony Lowman and Kayla Morgan-Smart in 2015. The child's paternal grandmother, Natasha Ray, was appointed as her temporary guardian shortly after birth. Ray was later allowed to intervene in the parents' divorce action to determine custody once the guardianship ended in August 2021. Before the guardianship ended, attorney Wm. Breck Seiniger, Jr. was asked by Ray to represent the child, which he accepted without court appointment. Seiniger filed a notice of appearance in the divorce action, which the parents objected to. The magistrate court ruled that Seiniger could not represent the child as there was no motion to appoint counsel, it was unnecessary at that stage, and a neutral attorney would be appointed if needed.The parents reached a custody agreement and filed a stipulation for joint custody. Despite the magistrate court's ruling, Seiniger objected to the proposed judgment on behalf of the child. The magistrate court overruled the objections and entered a judgment consistent with the parents' stipulation. Ray appealed the custody judgment to the district court, joined by Seiniger. The district court concluded that Seiniger had no authority to represent the child and dismissed the appeal, characterizing Seiniger as an "officious interloper." Ray's appeal was later dismissed for failure to provide timely briefing.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the magistrate court acted within its discretion in rejecting Seiniger's representation of the child, as there was no motion to appoint counsel and it was unnecessary at that stage. The court also found that Seiniger's arguments were unpreserved and unsupported by sufficient authority. Consequently, the district court's order, including the decision to strike all pleadings filed by Seiniger, was affirmed. View "Lowman v. Morgan-Smart" on Justia Law

In 2015, the parental rights of H.M. and B.M.'s biological parents were terminated, and the children were adopted by their aunt, C.M. In 2019, the children were removed from C.M.'s home due to her substance abuse but were later returned after she completed an improvement period. In April 2022, new referrals indicated C.M. had relapsed, and the family was homeless. C.M. placed H.M. and B.M. in guardianships and entered a rehabilitation facility. DHS filed an abuse and neglect petition in May 2022. C.M. stipulated to substance abuse, and the court found the children to be abused and neglected. C.M. was granted an improvement period but failed to secure stable housing and employment and tested positive for drugs.The Circuit Court of Jefferson County held dispositional hearings and determined that C.M. did not substantially comply with her improvement period. The court placed H.M. in a legal guardianship with her foster mother, A.H., under West Virginia Code § 49-4-604(c)(5), and dismissed C.M. from the case, allowing only the GAL or DHS to seek modification of the disposition.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that C.M. failed to make sufficient improvement to be reunified with H.M. However, the court found errors in the dispositional order, specifically the dismissal of C.M. from the case and the provision for post-termination visitation at A.H.'s discretion. The court affirmed the decision to place H.M. in a legal guardianship but vacated the order in part and remanded the case for further proceedings to correct these deficiencies. View "In re H.M." on Justia Law

Christopher J. Lamm and Amanda R. Kinney Anderson are the parents of F.L.F.L.K. Christopher lives in Williston, North Dakota, and Amanda lives in Bainville, Montana. They were not married, and after the birth of their child, Christopher filed a Petition for Parenting Plan in the District Court on March 1, 2023. The court held a hearing on May 23, 2023, where both parties, representing themselves, participated in an informal manner. The court established an interim parenting plan, allowing Christopher supervised visits with the goal of gradually increasing his parenting time.The District Court issued an order on January 22, 2024, setting a hearing for a final parenting plan under the new Informal Domestic Relations Trial (IDRT) process, which came into effect on October 1, 2023. The court held the hearing on February 5, 2024, where it questioned both parties about their lives and their ability to care for the child. The court issued its final parenting plan on February 7, 2024, designating Amanda as the primary custodian and gradually increasing Christopher's parenting time, with the goal of transitioning to overnight visits once the child turned two.Christopher appealed, arguing that the District Court failed to fully inform him of the IDRT process and did not consider the best interests of the child statutes. The Montana Supreme Court found that while the District Court did not fully explain the IDRT process, Christopher did not object and fully participated in the hearing. The court also found no substantial prejudice to Christopher from the IDRT process. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the manner the IDRT was conducted or in the formulation of the final parenting plan. View "In re Parenting of F.L.F.L.K." on Justia Law

The petitioner, Maria Cristina Jarero Penichet (mother), appealed orders from the Circuit Court granting the motion of the respondent, Kenneth Corroon (father), to deny registration of a foreign child support order from Mexico under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The Circuit Court concluded that the Mexico court did not have personal jurisdiction over the father and denied the mother’s request to reopen the record.The mother and father, who are unmarried, have one minor child born in New York in 2016. They executed a Stipulation of Paternity, Custody, and Access in New York, granting the mother sole custody and the right to relocate with the child, which she did, moving to Mexico in September 2016. The father, who lives in New Hampshire, began providing monthly child support. In 2022, the mother filed a petition in Mexico City for child support, resulting in a temporary support order. She then sought to register this order in New Hampshire, which the father contested, arguing that Mexico lacked personal jurisdiction over him.The Circuit Court found that the father did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Mexico to justify its exercise of personal jurisdiction. The court issued temporary orders to protect the child’s interests and denied the mother’s motion for reconsideration and to reopen the record, concluding that the additional facts presented did not establish jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision. The court held that the father did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits and protections of Mexico’s laws, as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also found no error in the Circuit Court’s refusal to reopen the record, as the mother did not provide reasons why the new information could not have been presented earlier. View "In the Matter of Penichet and Corroon" on Justia Law

A father was found to have neglected his child by the Calloway Circuit Court after a school resource officer (SRO) detected the odor of marijuana emanating from the father's vehicle during a school drop-off. The child, who was six years old, was also found to have behavioral issues at school and tested positive for marijuana exposure. The father tested positive for marijuana, methamphetamine, and oxycodone, although he had a prescription for the latter. The family court concluded that the father’s substance use created a risk of physical injury to the child.The father appealed the decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which reversed the family court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals held that the family court’s decision was clearly erroneous, asserting that the Cabinet for Health and Family Services had not provided sufficient evidence that the father's actions resulted in a risk of physical or emotional injury to the child.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the family court's order. The Supreme Court held that the family court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, including the SRO’s testimony, the Cabinet investigator’s observations, and the drug test results. The Supreme Court concluded that the father’s actions, including smoking marijuana in an enclosed vehicle with the child and driving under the influence, created a reasonable potential for harm, thus constituting neglect under Kentucky law. View "Commonwealth v. K.O." on Justia Law

Melzena Moore pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter of Raymond Jackson under extreme emotional disturbance (EED) as part of a plea agreement. The issue on appeal is whether the Laurel Circuit Court erred in denying Moore the domestic violence exemption to the mandatory minimum sentence for parole eligibility. This exemption would allow Moore to be considered for parole after serving 20% of her eighteen-year sentence and qualify her for counseling and rehabilitation programs.The Laurel Circuit Court found that Moore was a victim of domestic violence based on a single corroborated incident but concluded that her shooting of Jackson did not occur "with regard to" the domestic violence. The court denied Moore the exemption, citing a lack of corroborating evidence for her account of the events leading up to the shooting and questioning her credibility. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, instructing the trial court to grant the exemption, arguing that the trial court failed to properly apply the "some connection" standard and did not adequately consider the expert testimony provided by Moore.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and determined that the trial court erred in its analysis by not making sufficient factual findings regarding the totality of the evidence of domestic violence. The court emphasized that the "some connection" standard does not require a direct causal link or contemporaneous act of domestic violence. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for further factual findings and proper application of the legal standard to determine if Moore qualifies for the domestic violence exemption. View "Commonwealth v. Moore" on Justia Law

Robert Wills and Aniela Humphries, who share three children, divorced in January 2012. They initially shared physical custody on a 2/3-1/3 basis, switching to a 50-50 arrangement in January 2013. In November 2020, Wills refused to return their middle child to Humphries, prompting her to file a motion to enforce the custody agreement. The court found Wills had disobeyed the custody order and undermined the child's relationship with Humphries. It ordered a gradual transition back to 50-50 custody.Humphries sought attorney’s fees for enforcing the custody order, and the court awarded her $21,000, considering the parties' financial circumstances and the importance of the issues. Despite the court's order, Wills moved to South Carolina with the middle child and later sought to modify custody. The court granted him primary physical custody and modified child support, requiring Humphries to pay $1,070.89 monthly.Humphries requested an offset of the child support she owed against the attorney’s fees Wills owed her. The court granted the offset, finding that manifest injustice would result if Humphries had to pay child support while Wills owed her a substantial sum. The court determined that Wills still owed $15,641.09 in attorney’s fees and ordered Humphries to begin paying child support in March 2024.The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order, holding that the superior court has discretion to order an offset against child support if good cause exists and the offset is in the children’s best interests. The court found that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that manifest injustice would result without the offset and that the offset was in the children’s best interests. View "Wills v. Humphries" on Justia Law

A woman who had been in a long-term romantic relationship with a child's legal mother sought joint legal custody and parenting time under Georgia's Equitable Caregiver Statute, OCGA § 19-7-3.1, after the couple broke up. The statute allows a non-parent to seek custody or visitation rights if they have undertaken a parental role and developed a bonded and dependent relationship with the child, supported by a parent. The child's mother challenged the constitutionality of the statute and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's order.The Superior Court granted the woman's request for equitable caregiver status, finding that she had established a bonded and dependent relationship with the child and that the child would suffer long-term emotional harm without continued contact. The court awarded joint legal custody and parenting time to the woman, despite the mother's objections.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Equitable Caregiver Statute, particularly regarding the fundamental right of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children. The court noted that any waiver of this constitutional right must be knowing and voluntary, and that conduct prior to the statute's effective date could not constitute such a waiver. The court concluded that the statute does not authorize trial courts to confer equitable caregiver status based on conduct by the legal parent that took place before the statute's effective date.The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the trial court's order, holding that the Equitable Caregiver Statute does not apply to parental conduct occurring before its effective date. The court did not resolve the constitutional questions but based its decision on statutory construction and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. View "DIAS v. BOONE" on Justia Law

A mother and father, who married in December 2021 and separated a year later, have two children (twins). The father also has three children from a previous marriage. After their separation, the mother filed for divorce, and the case went to trial to resolve issues of custody, child support, and property division. The district court granted the divorce, determined custody, ordered the father to pay child support, and divided the property.The district court awarded the parents alternating-week custody of the twins, differing from the holiday schedule for the father's children from his previous marriage. The court also granted the mother final decision-making authority regarding the twins. The father was ordered to pay child support based on the mother's income, which the court calculated using her tax returns and other financial documents. The court also divided the equity in the marital home, using an appraised value from October 2023 and the mortgage obligation from December 2022.The father appealed to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, contesting the holiday visitation schedule, the mother's final decision-making authority, the calculation of the mother's income for child support, and the division of the home equity. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court's decisions for abuse of discretion.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decisions. It found that the holiday visitation schedule, while different from the father's schedule with his other children, was not an abuse of discretion. The court also upheld the decision to grant the mother final decision-making authority, noting that the district court adequately explained its reasoning. The calculation of the mother's income for child support was supported by sufficient evidence, and the division of the home equity was reasonable given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court's decisions were within the bounds of reason and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. View "Amadio v. Amadio" on Justia Law

A young adult with intellectual and developmental disabilities, referred to as G.J.F., moved to Alaska in 2021 and was referred by a homeless shelter to Volunteers of America Alaska (VOA), a nonprofit organization. VOA provided intensive case management support, including housing assistance and help with applying for government benefits. Despite initial resistance from G.J.F., a consistent therapeutic relationship was eventually established. VOA petitioned the superior court to appoint the Public Guardian as a full guardian for G.J.F., arguing that less restrictive alternatives were not feasible or adequate to meet G.J.F.'s needs.The superior court appointed a visitor and scheduled a hearing. The visitor's report and a neuropsychological evaluation indicated that G.J.F. had multiple mental health diagnoses and significant difficulties with decision-making and daily living tasks. The master recommended a full guardianship, but the Public Guardian objected, leading to an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, VOA staff testified about the extensive support they provided to G.J.F. and the limitations of their services. The court found that VOA's services were not sustainable and that G.J.F. needed decision-making support that only a full guardian could provide.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's order appointing the Public Guardian as a full guardian for G.J.F. The court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining that less restrictive alternatives were not feasible or adequate to meet G.J.F.'s needs. The court found that the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting the need for a full guardianship, given G.J.F.'s significant vulnerabilities and the limitations of VOA's support. The court also noted that relying on the visitor's report, which was not admitted into evidence, was harmless error because the same information was provided through other evidence. View "In the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of G.J.F" on Justia Law