Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court transferring sole legal and physical custody over C.J. to Duke Jaeger, subject to Stacey Jaeger's parenting time, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by moving C.J. to Duke's sole legal and physical custody; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Stacy's testimony about previous abuse allegations; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Stacey's motion for a new trial. View "Jaeger v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court ordering Timothy Weiland to pay Ann Weiland a fixed award of $465 per month for military pension benefits and to pay Ann her share of Timothy's retirement benefits had had received and not paid to Ann, holding that the district court erred when it assigned a fixed monthly dollar value.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that under the parties' divorce decree, the district court erred when it assigned a fixed monthly dollar value to Ann's interest in Timothy's military retirement benefits. Ann was entitled to an award of military pension benefits and back payments, but the fixed monthly benefit award and the fixed monthly amount of back payments was vacated. The Court reversed and remanded with directions to determine the equitable distribution of Timothy's military retirement expressed as a formula that adheres to the points awarded in the decree and consistent with a hypothetical retirement date as of the date of the decree. View "Weiland v. Weiland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying several provisions of a judgment establishing custody, visitation, and support of minor children based on the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis, holding that the correct modification standard was applied.In its order, the district court found a material change in circumstances and modified several provisions pertaining to the support of the minor children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) judgments establishing in loco parentis rights regarding the custody, visitation, and support of a minor child ordinarily will not be modified absent a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the child, but whether the in loco parentis relationship has changed is relevant to determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances and whether modification is in the child's best interests; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a material change in circumstances justified modifying support-related provisions concerning the minor children. View "Windham v. Kroll" on Justia Law

Defendant Gemini Insurance Company appealed a district court's holding La. C.C. arts. 2315.1, 2315.2 and 199 were “unconstitutional as applied to children given in adoption” and overruling the defendants’ peremptory exceptions of no right of action. At issue was whether plaintiffs Daniel Goins and David Watts, two adult children who were given in adoption as minors, had a right to bring wrongful death and survival actions stemming from the deaths of their biological father and his two minor children, who were not given in adoption, and were plaintiffs’ biological half-siblings. After a de novo review, based on the clear and unambiguous wording of La. C.C. arts. 2315.1 and 2315.2, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded Goins and Watts were “children of the deceased” and “brothers of the deceased” who were permitted to bring wrongful death and survival actions arising from the death of their biological father and half-siblings. In view of the Court's holding that plaintiffs had a right to assert survival and wrongful death actions, the Court declined to address their argument that La. C.C. arts. 2315.1, 2315.2 and 199 were unconstitutional as applied to children given in adoption. View "Rismiller v. Gemini Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing sua sponte to conduct a second inquiry into the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) to assist Mother in her termination of parental rights proceeding.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was warranted on the grounds of neglect and dependency. The court also concluded that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing sua sponte to conduct a second inquiry into whether Mother should be appointed a GAL to assist her during the termination proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing sua sponte to conduct a second inquiry into the need to appoint a GAL for Mother. View "In re Q.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child on the grounds of willful failure to pay for the cost of care of the child and willful abandonment, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on Father's willful failure to pay for the child's care and Father's willful abandonment of the child. The court further found that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a). View "In re C.A.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the trial court properly decided to terminate the parental rights of Mother.On appeal, Mother asserted that her counsel's cross-examination of a witness for the Wilkes County Department of Social Services during the termination hearing and Mother's counsel's closing arguments constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother's counsel did not render ineffective assistance, and therefore, there was no prejudice to her in the hearing proceedings. View "In re T.N.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the issues raised by counsel in a no-merit brief did not entitle Mother to relief.The trial court found that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7), and (9) and that termination of Mother's parental rights to her three children was in the children's best interests. Mother appealed, and her appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief on Mother's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding and concluding that a basis for termination of Mother's parental rights existed; and (2) the trial court's order was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the trial court erred in finding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2) and (6) and that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights to both children.The trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, and dependency. On appeal, Mother challenged two of the trial court's findings of fact as being unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) portions of the trial court's findings were not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusions of law that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re K.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order entered by the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights in his children on the basis of a determination that his parental rights were subject to termination for neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the removal of the children from the home. The court further determined that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by finding the existence of at least one ground for terminating Father's parental rights and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. View "In re K.P.-S.T." on Justia Law