Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A mother appealed the July 2024 orders of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, which awarded guardianship of her children, I.R.S. and M.W.A.H., to non-kinship, non-Native American foster parents. The children were removed from the mother's home due to her illicit drug use and associated safety concerns. I.R.S. is a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, triggering the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Department initially placed I.R.S. with the mother's sister (Aunt), but later removed him due to allegations of physical abuse. The mother did not object to the new placement at the time. M.W.A.H. was born in September 2022 and was also removed from the mother's custody due to her continued issues. Both children were placed with a non-kinship, non-Native American foster family.The District Court adjudicated both children as youths in need of care and extended temporary custody to the Department. The mother did not contest these adjudications. The Department later petitioned for guardianship, which the mother initially contested but later approved of the placement. However, she changed her mind multiple times during the proceedings. The Aunt filed a motion to intervene, asserting her right under ICWA, but later withdrew her motion and was deemed an "interested person."The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decisions. The court held that the mother was not denied her right to counsel, as she had stipulated to the adjudication and did not pursue a transfer to tribal court. The court also found that the District Court did not err in failing to treat the mother's questions about transferring her case to tribal court as a motion to transfer. Additionally, the court concluded that the District Court did not erroneously deny the Aunt's motion to intervene, as she withdrew her motion. Finally, the court held that the District Court correctly concluded that good cause existed to deviate from ICWA placement preferences, as the Department had made diligent efforts to find a suitable ICWA-preferred placement but found none. View "In re I.R.S. & M.W.A.H." on Justia Law

A married couple, with three young children, filed for divorce. The mother requested primary custody, pendente lite child support, and alimony, while the father requested primary custody and child support. A family magistrate found both parents capable of earning significant income and denied the mother's request for pendente lite child support and alimony, recommending shared custody and shared payment of the mortgage and utilities for the marital home.The Circuit Court for Howard County adopted the magistrate's recommendations and denied the mother's exceptions to the magistrate's report. The mother appealed, citing Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-303(3)(v), which allows appeals from interlocutory orders for the payment of money.The Appellate Court of Maryland dismissed the appeal, holding that an interlocutory order denying pendente lite child support and alimony is not appealable under CJ § 12-303(3)(v) because it does not direct the payment of money. The mother then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland for a writ of certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment, holding that CJ § 12-303(3)(v) authorizes appeals only from interlocutory orders that direct the payment of money, not from orders denying such requests. The Court concluded that the legislative history and case law support this interpretation, emphasizing that the statute's plain language does not permit appeals from orders denying the payment of money. View "Adelakun v. Adelakun" on Justia Law

Approximately two years after Jessica Silveira da Silva brought her minor son, A.R., to the United States, A.R.'s father, Edervaldo Rodrigues da Silva, initiated proceedings in federal court to return A.R. to Brazil under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Rodrigues proved that A.R. had been wrongfully removed, and Silveira invoked the "now settled" defense, arguing that A.R.'s extensive ties to the community in Lowell, Massachusetts, weighed against returning him to Brazil.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a three-day bench trial and ultimately concluded that A.R. was not settled in the United States. The court found that although A.R. had lived in Lowell for over two years, attended the same school, and had some family and community ties, these factors did not sufficiently demonstrate that A.R. was settled. The court ordered Silveira to return A.R. to Brazil.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's findings. The appellate court held that the district court erred in concluding that A.R. was not settled in the United States. The First Circuit found that the totality of the circumstances, including A.R.'s age, stable home environment, consistent school attendance, and community involvement, demonstrated that A.R. was indeed settled. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for the district court to decide whether to exercise its equitable discretion to order A.R.'s return to Brazil despite his settled status. View "Rodrigues da Silva v. Silveira da Silva" on Justia Law

In this case, Erica Hall and Nicholas Houser, who married in 2012 and have one minor child, sought an absolute divorce in 2020. They presented three agreements to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, including one that proposed no child support and waived arrears. The court rejected this agreement, stating it was not in the child's best interest and ordered Mr. Houser to pay child support and arrears to Ms. Hall, who was the primary custodian.The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court's decision, rejecting the parents' agreement regarding child support and upholding the award of child support and arrears. Both parties then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland for a writ of certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that parents cannot waive the issue of child support and arrears, even in a bilateral agreement, because child support is a legal obligation, and the right to receive it belongs to the child, not the parents. The court also held that a parent's fundamental right to determine the care, custody, and control of their children does not include the ability to waive child support, as it is a parental obligation, not a right. Therefore, lawfully ordered child support does not violate a parent's fundamental rights.Additionally, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the parents' agreement to pay no child support, as the parties failed to provide sufficient justification for their request. The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court, maintaining the child support order. View "In re Marriage of Houser" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Kelly O. Orgeron, sought a community property share of $16,949,000 in liquidated damages paid to her ex-husband, Edward J. Orgeron, Jr., upon the termination of his employment as a college football coach in 2021. The liquidated damages were a contractual benefit guaranteed by his employer, Louisiana State University (LSU), effective January 14, 2020, before the defendant filed for divorce on February 26, 2020. The agreements relevant to this case included a Binding Term Sheet, an Employment Agreement, and a Termination Agreement, all of which had provisions regarding liquidated damages upon termination without cause.The trial court did not award the plaintiff a share of the liquidated damages, interpreting the January 2020 Binding Term Sheet as an agreement to agree rather than a binding contract. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit, upheld this decision.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in its interpretation. The court held that the January 2020 Binding Term Sheet was a binding and enforceable contract, and the subsequent Employment Agreement continued and confirmed the termination-without-cause provisions. Both agreements were effective during the existence of the community property regime between the plaintiff and the defendant, making the liquidated damages a community asset.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the defendant and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her a one-half share of the net liquidated damages, amounting to $8,134,500. View "Orgeron v. Orgeron" on Justia Law

LaToya Adams (Mother) and Dominick Gallegos (Father) are divorced, with Father having primary physical custody of their minor children as per a district court order. Mother filed a motion for an order to show cause, seeking to hold Father in contempt of the custody order, alleging that Father was not allowing her visitation with the children. The district court denied her motion, leading to this appeal.The District Court of Laramie County had previously modified the custody arrangement in August 2023, granting Father physical custody and allowing Mother visitation as deemed safe and appropriate by Father. The order also required the children to remain in counseling and for the parties to follow the recommendations of the counselors regarding visitation. During the hearing, testimony revealed that Father had restricted Mother's contact with the children due to safety concerns, particularly for one child, Y.G., who had significant mental health issues exacerbated by contact with Mother. The district court found that Father acted in good faith based on the therapist's recommendation and did not violate the custody order, thus denying Mother's motion for contempt.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and noted several deficiencies in Mother's appeal, including the lack of a designated record and failure to comply with procedural rules. The court found that Mother's brief did not present cogent arguments or pertinent authority to support her claims. Consequently, the Wyoming Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the denial of Mother's motion for an order to show cause. View "Adams v. Gallegos" on Justia Law

Edward Conant Gartrell, Jr. and Sharon Smith Gartrell were divorced by a 2023 judgment of the Madison Circuit Court, which denied Sharon's request for periodic alimony. Sharon appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her alimony request. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the divorce judgment in part but reversed the denial of periodic alimony, remanding the case for reconsideration under § 30-2-57. On remand, the trial court again denied Sharon's request for periodic alimony, finding she failed to prove her need and the husband's ability to pay without undue hardship.Sharon appealed again, arguing the trial court erred by not reserving jurisdiction to award periodic alimony in the future. The Court of Civil Appeals, in a plurality opinion, affirmed the denial of periodic alimony but agreed that the trial court should have reserved jurisdiction, citing the potential for Sharon's financial circumstances to change. The dissenting opinion argued that § 30-2-57(c) provides the only circumstances under which a court can reserve jurisdiction, implying that the common law allowing broader discretion had been abrogated.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case to address whether § 30-2-57(c) limits the circumstances in which a trial court can reserve jurisdiction to award periodic alimony. The court held that § 30-2-57(c) does not provide the only circumstances for reserving jurisdiction. Instead, it requires reservation in specific circumstances but does not preclude the court's common-law authority to reserve jurisdiction when justice requires it. The court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, allowing the trial court to reserve jurisdiction to award periodic alimony in the future if warranted by changing circumstances. View "Ex parte Gartrell" on Justia Law

In this case, Matthew M. Jaksha and Jessica L. Jaksha's marriage was dissolved in 2017, with a stipulated decree awarding joint legal and physical custody of their minor child. In 2020, a modification awarded Matthew sole legal custody, while Jessica retained decision-making over the child's religious upbringing. In 2021, another modification granted Matthew sole legal and physical custody, with a tiered parenting plan for Jessica's supervised and unsupervised parenting time, contingent on her sobriety.Jessica filed a complaint to modify in 2023, citing her sustained sobriety, but the district court dismissed it, finding no material change in circumstances. Jessica did not appeal this decision but instead filed a complaint in 2024 to vacate or amend the 2021 modification order, arguing it was not a final order and should be relitigated.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the 2021 modification order was final as it resolved all issues raised in the modification pleadings. The court also found that the district court correctly refused to vacate or modify the order, as Jessica's complaint was filed long after the term in which the order was entered, and she failed to establish grounds under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(4) or any equitable basis for vacating the order. The court also declined to consider Jessica's argument that the order was void as against public policy, as it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "Jaksha v. Jaksha" on Justia Law

Nicholas Roddy Ramlow and Amanda Marie Mitchell share custody of their minor son. The magistrate court had jurisdiction over their child custody case since 2016. In 2020, a temporary order was issued for the child to attend Kindergarten at Winton Elementary in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The parents later entered into a custody agreement that did not specify the child's school. In 2021, Mitchell moved to Pinehurst, Idaho, and enrolled the child in Pinehurst Elementary without informing Ramlow, who was under a no-contact order. Ramlow discovered the change in 2023 and attempted to enroll the child in Bryan Elementary in Coeur d'Alene, but the school secretary, Miriam McBenge, refused without both parents' consent or a court order.Ramlow filed a petition for declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus in the district court to allow the child's enrollment in Coeur d'Alene. The district court dismissed the petition under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(8), citing the ongoing child custody case in the magistrate court. Ramlow argued that the district court erred in its dismissal. McBenge and Mitchell requested the district court's decision be affirmed.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that the magistrate court was better positioned to resolve the issue of the child's school enrollment due to its ongoing jurisdiction over the custody case. The court noted that the district court acted within its discretion and followed the appropriate legal standards. The case was remanded to the district court to amend the judgment to reflect a dismissal without prejudice. Additionally, the court awarded attorney fees on appeal to Mitchell under Idaho Code section 12-121, as Ramlow's appeal was deemed frivolous and without foundation. View "Ramlow v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Spencer Sharpe (Father) appealed a district court order denying his motion to hold Amy Evans (Mother) in contempt for allegedly withholding his parenting time and excluding him from their children's medical decisions. The parties divorced in 2018, agreeing to share custody, with Mother having final decision-making authority and discretion to withhold Father's parenting time if his mental health was not properly managed. In 2021, both parties sought to modify custody, and the district court found Mother had unreasonably denied Father visitation. The court modified the custody order and held Mother in contempt for past violations.Mother appealed the modification, and the Wyoming Supreme Court upheld the modification but reversed the contempt finding, citing ambiguity in the decree. While the appeal was pending, an incident occurred where Mother took one child from Father's home after an argument, leading to further legal disputes. The district court found Mother in contempt for not allowing supervised visits but did not hold her in contempt for other denials of parenting time due to lack of evidence of Father's compliance with required psychological evaluations.Father filed another motion for contempt, claiming Mother continued to deny his parenting time and interfered with medical decisions. The district court found no willful contempt by Mother and ordered Father to undergo a new psychological evaluation. Father appealed, arguing constitutional violations and ADA issues, but these arguments were not raised in the lower court or pertained to orders not currently under appeal.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, finding no error in denying the contempt motion. The court also granted Mother's request for attorney's fees and costs, citing the lack of reasonable cause for the appeal and the absence of cogent argument and relevant legal authority in Father's brief. View "Sharpe v. Evans" on Justia Law