Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves S.G., the mother of four children, aged eleven, nine, seven, and five, who were removed from her custody due to ongoing domestic violence by their father. S.G. appealed a December 20, 2023 order denying her motion to appoint a psychological expert to perform a bonding study under Evidence Code section 730. This request was made before an 18-month review hearing while she was still receiving reunification services. The juvenile court denied the motion, partly on the ground that it was improper to appoint an expert to aid S.G. in her defense and possibly because the request was deemed unripe during ongoing reunification services.The juvenile court initially declared the three older children dependents on February 27, 2020, due to domestic violence, allowing them to remain with S.G. with family maintenance services. On July 19, 2022, the youngest child was also declared a dependent. On September 29, 2022, all four children were removed from S.G.'s custody and placed in foster care. The court sustained a supplemental petition alleging continued contact between the parents and further domestic violence. Reunification services were ordered for S.G. but bypassed for the father. At the six-month and twelve-month review hearings, S.G.'s services were extended.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that a parent may request, and the court must consider, the appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in dependency proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying S.G.'s motion on the grounds that it was improper to aid her defense and possibly because it was premature. The appellate court vacated the order as to the two older children and remanded the matter for a new hearing, while dismissing the appeals concerning the two younger children as moot. View "In re P.S." on Justia Law

James Wilson and Jillian Wilson, who were married and had one minor child, divorced, leading to a custody dispute. The magistrate court awarded primary physical custody to Jillian and allowed her to relocate with the child to Australia, where both hold citizenship. Jillian was also granted sole legal custody over educational and medical decisions, while James was given two weeks of visitation annually during school breaks. James appealed the decision.The magistrate court's decision was based on several factors, including the unhealthy relationship between James and the child, characterized by controlling and manipulative behavior. The court found that James's actions, such as co-sleeping and inappropriate touching, created an environment that could potentially harm the child. The court also considered Jillian's motivations for relocating, including better family support and higher income prospects in Australia.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the magistrate court's decision. The court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Jillian to relocate with the child, as the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence. The court also found that the magistrate court correctly applied the legal standard for relocation and considered the best interests of the child.Additionally, the Supreme Court of Idaho upheld the magistrate court's decision to limit James's physical custody and visitation, as well as the award of sole legal custody to Jillian for educational and medical decisions. The court concluded that these decisions were in the best interests of the child and were supported by substantial evidence. Jillian was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "Wilson v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The case involves the father of a four-year-old child, Katy, who was initially placed with him by the Durham County Department of Social Services (DSS) after her mother, who had custody, was found to have substance abuse issues. DSS later discovered the father had a significant criminal history and was arrested for assault. Consequently, DSS recommended placing Katy with her paternal aunt and uncle, which the trial court approved. The trial court also found that both parents acted inconsistently with their constitutional rights as parents, although neither parent raised a constitutional claim during the trial.The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and, in a divided opinion, reversed the trial court's decision. The majority held that the trial court lacked authority to place Katy with anyone other than her father, as there were no allegations or findings that he was unfit or had acted inconsistently with his constitutional rights. The majority also ruled that the constitutional issue was preserved for appellate review because the father opposed DSS's recommendation. The dissent argued that the trial court's findings on the constitutional standard were premature and unnecessary.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and focused on whether the constitutional issue was properly preserved for appellate review. The Court held that a parent must explicitly raise a constitutional claim in the trial court to preserve it for appeal. Since the father conceded he did not argue the issue as a constitutional violation in the trial court, the Supreme Court determined the issue was not preserved. Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, emphasizing the need for parents to inform the trial court and opposing parties of any constitutional challenges to ensure proper evidence is presented. View "In re K.C." on Justia Law

A child, referred to as Liam, suffered severe injuries at one month old, including multiple fractures and bruises, while in the care of his parents. The Onslow County Department of Social Services (DSS) took custody of Liam, who now requires extensive medical care due to cerebral palsy and other conditions resulting from the abuse. Liam was placed with foster parents, Daniel and Jessica Hall, who have provided him with a stable and nurturing environment. Liam's maternal grandfather expressed interest in custody but admitted he could not provide the necessary care.The District Court of Onslow County adjudicated Liam as abused and neglected and held multiple permanency-planning hearings. The court ultimately awarded custody to the Halls, finding that reunification with the parents was not in Liam's best interest due to their inability to explain his injuries and the mother's failure to participate in his medical care. The court also considered but did not find the maternal grandfather a suitable caretaker.The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order, finding the trial court's findings insufficient under relevant statutory provisions. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new hearing.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements, including considerations of the child's best interests and the feasibility of reunification. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order awarding custody to the Halls and converting the case to a Chapter 50 civil custody proceeding. View "In re L.L." on Justia Law

Renee Sevelitte and the Estate of Joseph F. Sevelitte dispute the entitlement to the proceeds of a life insurance policy Joseph purchased during his marriage to Renee. Massachusetts law automatically revokes a spouse's beneficiary status upon divorce unless specific exceptions apply. The life insurance policy named Renee as the beneficiary, but the policy did not address the effect of divorce on beneficiary status. Renee and Joseph's divorce agreement included provisions about life insurance policies but did not explicitly state that Renee would remain the beneficiary of the policy in question.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to the Estate, determining that Renee could not establish that any exceptions to the automatic revocation applied. Renee appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that its previous decision did not determine that the divorce agreement satisfied the statutory exceptions but only that it was plausible. The court emphasized that Renee needed to provide evidence to support her claim that the divorce agreement intended to maintain her beneficiary status. The Estate presented evidence, including an affidavit from Joseph's divorce attorney and an expert report, indicating that the divorce agreement did not intend to retain Renee's beneficiary status.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Renee failed to present any evidence to create a genuine dispute about the intended meaning of the divorce agreement. Therefore, the court held that the Estate was entitled to the proceeds of the life insurance policy. View "Sevelitte v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law

Nicholas and Heather Wasilk, former spouses, share joint legal custody of their three minor children. Heather sought to take the children on vacation to Mexico and requested Nicholas’s consent for their passport applications. Nicholas refused, leading Heather to file a motion for an order directing Nicholas to participate in the passport application process. The circuit court granted Heather’s motion. Nicholas appealed, arguing that the circuit court lacked authority to resolve Heather’s motion, failed to properly weigh the best interests of the children, and infringed on his fundamental parental rights.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, initially adopted a custody arrangement where Heather had primary physical custody. In 2023, Nicholas sought to modify the custody agreement to include travel restrictions, proposing that the children not leave the continental United States without both parents' consent. The court adopted a modified agreement requiring 45 days' notice for international travel and a court hearing if either parent objected. Heather planned a trip to Mexico and requested Nicholas’s consent for passports, which he refused, citing safety concerns and the child’s medical conditions. The circuit court, after a hearing, ordered Nicholas to cooperate with the passport application process.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the circuit court had the authority to order Nicholas to participate in the passport application process under 22 C.F.R. § 51.28(c)(2). The court found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the trip was in the best interests of the children, considering the safety measures Heather planned and the benefits of the trip. The court also held that Nicholas’s fundamental parental rights were not infringed, as the best interests of the children standard applied in disputes between parents. View "Wasilk v. Wasilk" on Justia Law

A four-year-old child, Noah C., was repeatedly removed from and returned to his abusive parents' custody by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Tragically, Noah died in July 2019 due to abuse by his parents. His great-grandmother, Evangelina Hernandez, acting personally and on behalf of Noah's estate and his siblings, sued the County of Los Angeles and Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services for negligence. The case at issue concerns the second cause of action for negligence against the County, alleging that DCFS failed to notify Hernandez about a removal warrant for Noah that was obtained but not executed.The trial court overruled the County's demurrer to the negligence claim, holding that the County had a mandatory duty under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 to notify Hernandez about the removal warrant. The County then filed a petition for writ of mandate to overturn this ruling. The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ directing the trial court to either vacate its order and sustain the demurrer or show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue. The trial court declined to vacate its order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that section 361.3 does not impose a mandatory duty on the County to notify a relative about an application for a protective custody warrant or a court order granting such a warrant before the minor's removal from parental custody. The court also concluded that other provisions cited by Hernandez, including the California Department of Social Services Manual of Policies and Procedures, Civil Code section 1714, and the special relationship doctrine, do not establish such a duty. Consequently, the court granted the petition in part, vacated the trial court's order overruling the demurrer, and directed the trial court to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer to the second cause of action without leave to amend. View "County of Los Angeles v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

The State of Oklahoma sought to terminate the parental rights of Albert Parker, the natural father of J.O., a child who is a member of the Choctaw Nation. Parker was unaware of his paternity until genetic testing confirmed it in June 2022. The State filed a petition alleging that J.O. was deprived while in the mother's care, and the child was adjudicated deprived. Parker, who was incarcerated, had limited contact with J.O. and had not established a relationship with the child. The trial court terminated Parker's parental rights after a jury trial.The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that Parker's due process rights were violated and that the State was not required to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements. Both Parker and the State petitioned for certiorari review, which was granted.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and found that Parker's due process rights were indeed violated when the trial continued without his presence after his video feed was disconnected. The court also determined that the ICWA requirements apply in this case, regardless of whether Parker had a prior relationship with J.O. The court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded the case for a new trial, ensuring compliance with ICWA and OICWA provisions. View "In re J.O." on Justia Law

A woman and a man were married in July 2003 and separated in March 2022. Before their marriage, the woman had an employer-provided deferred compensation plan with a balance between $63,131.23 and $67,536.80. During the marriage, she continued contributing to the plan until 2006. She made significant withdrawals from the account for marital expenses, including $40,000 in 2009 and $75,000 in 2016. In 2018, the remaining funds were transferred to a USAA account and then to a Charles Schwab IRA account in 2020, which was valued at $102,100.55 at the time of trial. The parties disputed whether these funds were marital or nonmarital.The parties engaged in mediation in March 2022 and appeared before the superior court to memorialize their agreement. The court noted that the parties had agreed to allocate the assets and debts of the marriage with one exception related to the disputed account. The woman was to provide additional information to confirm that the marital portion of the account had already been spent. However, the parties had conflicting interpretations of this proviso, leading to further disputes.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court found that the superior court had erred in its legal conclusions. It ruled that the use of some funds for marital expenditures did not demonstrate an intent to donate the entire account to the marriage. Additionally, the court held that when a mixed account contains both premarital and marital funds, the default rule is "first in, last out," meaning premarital funds are not withdrawn until all marital funds have been exhausted. The court vacated the superior court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the respective separate and marital portions of the account. View "Rush v. Rush" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife married in 2012 and purchased a home in Cheyenne, Wyoming, in 2014. They shared the residence and paid the mortgage from a joint account. In 2021, they refinanced the home, and in December 2021, they separated. They discussed the division of their marital property without attorneys and obtained two appraisals for the home. Wife retained counsel to draft a stipulated divorce decree, which both parties signed. The decree awarded the home to Husband, with a provision that Wife would receive half the net proceeds if the home was sold or refinanced.The District Court of Laramie County granted the divorce and entered the Stipulated Decree in June 2022. Husband refinanced the home but did not pay Wife her share of the equity. Wife filed a motion for relief, claiming the decree entitled her to half the equity regardless of whether the home was sold or refinanced. The district court granted Wife relief under Rule 60, correcting the decree to reflect that any equity recognized through sale or refinance was to be equally divided.Husband appealed, and the Wyoming Supreme Court found the decree ambiguous and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The district court held a hearing and found that both parties intended to split the equity in the home equally. The court awarded Wife half the equity, amounting to $106,323.40, and Husband appealed again.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the clarification under Rule 60(a) was appropriate and did not modify the original judgment. The court also found that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient and supported by the record. View "Van Vlack v. Van Vlack" on Justia Law