Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Beth, holding that the trial court did not err.After a termination hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), (5), and (7). The written termination order did not explicitly state that the grounds to terminate Father's parental rights were proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, where the trial court stated the statutorily-mandated standard of proof in open court and there was nothing in the order indicating the trial court applied the incorrect standard of proof, the trial court did not reversibly err by failing to explicitly state the correct standard of proof in the written termination order. View "In re B.L.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief to Mother on her petition for mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its order holding Mother in contempt, holding that Mother was entitled to her requested relief.After a hearing, the trial court signed an enforcement order finding Mother in contempt of forty-eight violations of an agreed order the trial court entered upon the separation of Mother and Father. On appeal, Mother argued that the agreed order was too ambiguous to be enforced by contempt. The Supreme Court agreed and granted a writ of mandamus to Mother, holding that the agreed order could not support the contempt order because it did not "set forth the terms of compliance in clear, specific, and unambiguous terms." View "In re Pamela Janson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this custody matter for further proceedings, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by conflating Mother's contempt of court with the best interest of the child.Father filed a petition to request DNA testing, establish paternity, physical custody, parenting time and child support. Later, the trial court found Mother in contempt for relocating the child out of Indiana and for denying Father parenting time. The court then ordered that Father should have sole legal and physical custody of the child. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for additional proceedings, holding that Mother's alleged contempt was not so severe as to remove the child from her care. View "Yanes-Mirabal v. Badasay" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the juvenile court's dismissal of the State's petition to adjudicate a child, N.C., in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code 232.2(6)(b), (d), and (p), but revering the dismissal on the ground set forth in (d), holding that the State satisfied its burden of proof to adjudicate N.C. a child in need of assistance pursuant to Iowa Code 232.2(6)(d).Section 232.2(6)(d) defines a child in need of assistance as a child who "has been, or is imminently likely to be, sexually abused by the child's parent, guardian, custodian, or other member of the household in which the child resides." The Supreme Court held that N.C.'s report of sexual abuse in this case was credible and that the State satisfied its burden of proof. View "In re N.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the order of the juvenile court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that the State proved the grounds for termination of Father's parental rights and that termination was in the child's best interests.Father had a history of involvement with the Iowa Department of Human Services due to his issues with domestic violence, substance abuse, cognitive functioning, and mental health, leading to the termination of his parental rights to ten other children. In this case, Father's issues led to the removal of another child upon birth. When the child developed serious health issues, Father showed no interest in the child's medical care and failed to gain understanding of how to care for the child's medical needs. Ultimately, the juvenile court terminated Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father remained incapable of safely caring for the child, and there was no indication that his parenting abilities would adequately improve in the foreseeable future. View "In re J.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Grandfather's intervention, as a person standing in loco parentis, in a custody proceeding brought by Mother against Father, holding that the district court erred in ruling that Grandfather did not stand in loco parentis and in denying the complaint in intervention.The district court concluded that any in loco parentis status had been extinguished by virtue of a child support order issued more than one year earlier, as well as through temporary custody orders placing the child with a parent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) rather than making factual findings, the district court should have determined the matter of intervention on the pleadings; and (2) based on the allegations of the pleadings, Grandfather had a right to intervene. View "Carroll v. Gould" on Justia Law

Terry George appealed a domestic violence protection order entered against him, claiming the district court erred, without properly explaining the factual basis for its decision, in finding that a preponderance of the evidence supported that actual or imminent domestic violence had or would occur. Nicole Lindstaedt and George dated for approximately four years. They lived together and had a child in common. In February 2020, Lindstaedt petitioned for a domestic violence protection order against George, alleging he choked her, punched her, threatened to kill her, and forced her to have sex with him. After a hearing, the district court found George had committed domestic violence and issued a protection order against him. The order prohibited George from having contact with Lindstaedt for two years. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s finding of domestic violence was not induced by an erroneous view of the law, nor was the Court left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. The Supreme Court's review of the record showed Lindstaedt presented sufficient evidence for the district court to find domestic violence by recent physical harm and nonconsensual sex. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the domestic violence protection order. View "Lindstaedt v. George" on Justia Law

Amber Sather appealed a trial court judgment in hers and Adam Sather's divorce, a judgment that included a parenting plan for the parties’ children. She argued the district court erred by failing to include certain parenting plan provisions in the judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court found section 14-09-30, N.D.C.C., required all parenting plans, including plans stipulated to and adopted by the court, to contain provisions regarding decision-making responsibility, dispute resolution, transportation and exchanges, and summer parenting time; or an explanation as to why the provisions were not included. The parenting plan here did not include these provisions or explain why they were not included. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred by adopting the parties’ parenting plan without either all of the information in N.D.C.C. section 14-09-30(2) being included, or after considering the best interests of the children as required by N.D.C.C. section 14-09- 30(1), providing its own findings regarding the same. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Sather v. Sather" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Oklahoma Supreme Court's review centered on a child custody dispute between divorced parents where divorce actions were filed in two different states at different times. Petitioner-Appellant Ty Rader ("Father") appealed an Oklahoma trial court's order finding Kansas had exclusive, continuing child custody jurisdiction, and that Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under Oklahoma's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"). The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that because the Kansas child custody proceeding was dismissed by the parties, it was of no effect in the present matter, and the Oklahoma judge erred in failing to determine whether or not Oklahoma had become the minor child's new home state under the UCCJEA at the commencement of this proceeding. Thus, the Court reversed the part of the trial court's order finding the Oklahoma court did not have jurisdiction over child custody, and remanded to the trial court to consider whether or not Oklahoma became the minor child's new home state, and, if so, to consider Respondent-Appellee Brenda Rader's ("Mother") forum non conveniens argument, pursuant to 43 O.S. section 551-207. If Petitioner failed to establish Oklahoma as the new home state, the trial judge was ordered to transfer the matter to Kansas, pursuant to the UCCJEA. View "In re Marriage of Rader" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court entering a protection form abuse order against Mark Forino and in favor of Forino and Pat Doe's two children after a hearing on Doe's complaint for protection from abuse, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, Forino argued that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss Doe's complaint on res judicata grounds and his motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to allegations in Doe's previous complaint against him for protection from abuse. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed after emphasizing the need for caution in applying res judicata in cases regarding family matters, holding that res judicata did not bar Doe's second complaint. View "Doe v. Forino" on Justia Law