Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

In 2018, a school counselor contacted the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department” or “TDFPS”) regarding her concerns about potential child abuse involving Appellant Michael Hammack’s sixteen-year-old daughter. Department Investigator Amber Davidson opened a case and called Appellant, telling him about the investigation. Later that day, Davidson went to Appellant’s home to investigate, but Appellant told her to get off his property and to come back with a court order. Davidson did obtain: (1) an Order of Protection of a Child in an Emergency (“the Order”) that awarded custody of Appellant’s child to the Department; and (2) a Writ of Attachment that commanded any sheriff or constable in Texas to take the child and deliver her to the Department’s possession. This order granted sole managing conservatorship of the child to TDFPS as well as sole right of possession and custody of the child. That same day, Davidson returned to Appellant’s residence, accompanied by another investigator, to serve Appellant the Order. The investigators identified themselves and explained to Appellant that, pursuant to the Order, they were there to take custody of the child. Appellant immediately became aggressive and ordered them off his property. The issue this case presented for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ review centered on whether the State had to prove that a defendant was served with a copy of an emergency protection order to establish that a person “Interfere[s] with Child Custody.” The Court held no: the plain terms of the statute only required proof that the person who takes or retains a child in violation of a judgment or order, including a temporary one, knows that he or she is doing so in violation of such an order. “Proof that the person has been served with a temporary order may satisfy the State’s burden to prove such knowledge, but it is not required if knowledge can be proven through other means.” In this case, the State presented sufficient evidence that Appellant knew about the existence and relevant terms of the emergency protection order even though the evidence showed he had successfully avoided service. View "Hammack v. Texas" on Justia Law

A Mother appealed a juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children, Isaiah R. and Summer R., who were four years old and one year old when removed from her custody in 2017. Her only challenge on appeal was that the court found the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) didn’t apply to the children despite a report by both maternal grandparents revealing that their great-grandmother was a member of the Yaqui of Arizona. Mother and father were present at the initial detention hearing and both denied having Indian ancestry; the trial judge found ICWA didn’t apply. Both parents failed to reunify, and the maternal grandparents sought custody. At the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366 permanency planning review hearing, the grandparents completed forms where they indicated the children had Indian ancestry. The Court of Appeal agreed with Mother that the grandparents’ disclosure triggered a duty for the Children and Family Services department to inquire further, and therefore conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re S.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the probate court denying Mother's petition for termination of the parental rights of Father, which she filed in conjunction with her petition for adoption pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 18-C, 9-204(1), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Mother argued that the probate court failed properly to interpret the newly revised probate statute and that the court should have entered a default judgment terminating Father's parental rights when he failed to appear. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) the probate court correctly interpreted Me. Rev. Stat. 18-C, 9-204(1); and (2) the probate court properly concluded that it lacked authority to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re Adoption by Tamra M." on Justia Law

An Alaskan superior court denied a father’s motion to modify a foreign court’s custody determination because it did not believe it had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The father appealed, arguing the superior court erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction. Because the superior court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to modify the custody order, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed. View "Christensen v. Seckin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding Father custody of the parties' minor child subject to Mother's visitation, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Mother's motion for an order to show cause.Upon the parties' divorce, the district court awarded Father custody of the parties' child subject to Mother's specified visitation. After Father and the child moved to Bahrain, Mother, who lived in Russia, filed a petition to modify custody and visitation. Mother filed a motion for an order to show cause. The district court dismissed the show cause motion and granted Father's modification petition, applying the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Mother's show cause motion for inconvenient forum under the UCCJEA. View "Pokrovskaya v. Genderen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying KA's unopposed petition for adoption of minor child under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-22-101 et seq., holding that the adoption statutes did not prohibit KA from adopting the child.KA sought to adopt his ex-wife's son, with whom he had a loving relationship. Until recently, the child believed KA was his biological father, and when he learned the truth, he requested that KA adopt him. KA filed an unopposed petition to adopt the child. The district court denied the petition on the grounds that KA was married and thus not a "single adult," he did not jointly filed to adopt the child with his current wife, and his current wife was not the child's mother. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that that the adoption statutes did not prohibit KA from adopting the child. View "In re Adoption of ATWS" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's petition to modify custody and support of the parties' children, holding that there was no due process violation or abuse of discretion.Two months after the district court entered its order granting primary physical custody of the parties' children to Mother and ordering Father to pay child support Father filed his petition to modify custody and support. Father alleged that a material change in circumstances had arisen since the previous custody and support order. After a trial, the district court denied the motion, concluding that there had been on material change in circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Father's due process rights by denying his request to call the guardian ad litem to testify as to her bias; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by refusing to deduct mortgage interest to determine Father's income for purposes of calculating child support. View "Lemus v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying C.R.'s motion to modify a provision in final adoption orders prohibiting visitation between her adoptive children and R.R., her former husband, holding that this provision in the final adoption orders was an impermissible restriction on C.R.'s parental rights.Prior to and during abuse and neglect proceedings, J.S. and K.S. were in the custody of C.R., their biological aunt, and R.R. When it was discovered that R.R. was a user of illicit drugs C.R. filed for divorce and then filed an amended petition seeking to adopt J.S. and K.S. as a single parent. The circuit court granted the adoptions, but the orders provided that C.R. was enjoined and restrained from permitting contact by the children with R.R. C.R. filed a motion to modify the injunction, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's attempt to restrict C.R.'s parental rights denied her due process of law. View "In re Adoption of J.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the family court granting joint custody of the parties' minor child to Mother and Father, with physical placement awarded to Mother, and finding Mother in contempt of a prior visitation order, holding that there was no error.The trial justice issued a written decision and order awarding Mother and Father joint custody, with Mother having physical placement of the child and Father having unsupervised visitation. The trial justice later found Mother in contempt for failure to comply with a prior visitation order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in finding Mother in contempt and that Mother's remaining claims of error were unavailing. View "Harris v. Evans" on Justia Law

After an allegation that Bush had choked his son, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) began an investigation. Bush’s then-wife, Erika, obtained a court order suspending Bush’s parenting time. Bush filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on behalf of himself and his children, alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and claiming that DCFS employees’ conduct set off events culminating in a state court order infringing on his and his kids’ right to familial association.The district court dismissed, finding that Bush and his children lacked standing to bring a constitutional challenge to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and that the Younger abstention doctrine barred the court from ruling on the remaining constitutional claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.. Bush failed to allege facts sufficient to establish standing for his First Amendment claim. Adhering to principles of equity, comity, and federalism, the court concluded that the district court was right to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the remaining claims. View "J.B. v. Woodard" on Justia Law