Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dissolving Wife's marriage to Husband and distributing the marital estate, holding that the circuit court did not err in awarding a marital 401(k) account of uncertain value to Husband.On appeal from the circuit court's apportionment of the marital estate, Wife argued that the circuit court legally erred and abused its discretion in awarding the 401(k) account to Husband in light of Husband's marital misconduct. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Wife did not carry her burden to show that the asset and debt division was unfair under the circumstances or that the circuit court committed reversible error. View "Lollar v. Lollar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals remanding this termination of parental rights case to the juvenile court after clarifying the analysis the juvenile court should have applied when interpreting the termination statute, holding that the court of appeals did not err.The juvenile court found multiple grounds for terminating Father's parental rights and then, in compliance with the statutory framework, concluded that termination was in the children's best interests. The juvenile court then addressed the recent legislative mandate set forth in Utah Code 78A-6-507(1) that termination occur only when it is "strictly necessary" to terminate parental rights. On appeal, Father argued that the juvenile court misinterpreted the "strictly necessary" requirement. The court of appeals clarified the analysis the juvenile court should have employed and remanded the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in disavowing the "almost automatically" language in its case law; (2) the court of appeals properly found that the Termination of Parental Rights Act requires that termination be strictly necessary for the best interests of the child; and (3) the juvenile court should revisit the petition and apply the interpretation of the Act set forth in this petition. View "In re B.T.B." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's finding that placing 12 year old daughter out of state with father would be detrimental to her emotional well-being. The court held that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's detriment finding where the evidence shows that, among other things, daughter is strongly attached to her mother, half brother, and maternal family; they are loving; daughter is thriving in her grandmother's home; she sees mother daily and wants to reunify with her; and she has many friends, enjoys school, and is excelling academically. The court explained that a court properly may decline placement with a safe and nonoffending parent if that placement would be detrimental to the child's emotional well-being. View "In re A.C." on Justia Law

Erica served Francis with a petition for dissolution of marriage, along with an automatic temporary restraining order that prohibited him from “[t]ransferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing, or in any way disposing of any property ... without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life.” Francis subsequently initiated three bitcoin-related transactions, involving $45,000, $99,451, and $44,940. One account holder lost hundreds of thousands of bitcoins to hacking and embezzlement. Francis knew of the company’s bankruptcy but did not recover the bitcoins or his investment. Francis filed his preliminary schedule of assets, disclosing ownership of 1,062.21 bitcoins. Erica sought her half of the community bitcoins. Francis then disclosed that some were tied up in the bankruptcy so that he possessed only 613.53 of the 1062.21 community bitcoins.The court ordered Francis to transfer to Erica half of the bitcoins he had in his possession, to show cause why he should not be ordered to transfer an additional 224.34 bitcoins and proportional cryptocurrency, and to pay Erica’s attorney’s fees and costs. The court found that Francis had violated the automatic restraining order and his fiduciary duties and that he affirmatively hid information. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Francis’s argument that the information he withheld was not material and, alternatively, there was no substantial evidence his breach impaired Erica’s interest in their community estate. View "Marriage of DeSouza" on Justia Law

Brandi Koffler appealed a second amended judgment modifying Beau Koffler’s child support obligation. She argued the district court erred by finding there was a material change in circumstances warranting a modification of child support. After review of the facts specific to this case, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the court’s finding of a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the child support obligation was clearly erroneous. View "Koffler v. Koffler" on Justia Law

Alysha Instasi appealed a district court judgment dismissing her motion to amend a Washington child custody judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Instasi and Jeremy Hiebert had two children. In December 2015, a judgment was entered in Washington relating to residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support. In July 2018, Instasi moved to amend the Washington judgment in North Dakota district court. In an affidavit supporting the motion, Instasi stated that she and the children have been living in North Dakota since October 2015. The district court entered a default judgment after Hiebert failed to respond to Instasi’s motion. In June 2019, Hiebert moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing the North Dakota court lacked jurisdiction to decide Instasi’s motion to amend the Washington judgment. After a hearing, the court vacated the default judgment and dismissed Instasi’s motion. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to modify the initial child custody determination made in Washington. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in North Dakota. View "Instasi v. Hiebert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Clint Webb's motion to modify a child support order, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Pursuant to a divorce decree, the district court ordered Clint to pay Julia Webb $50 a month in child support. Clint did not appeal. After the Wyoming Legislature repealed Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-304(b) Clint filed a pro se "Motion to Modify and Correct Unconstitutional Child Support Order." In his motion, Clint argued that the district court's order requiring him to pay child support pursuant to section 20-2-304(b) was unconstitutional because it was rendered pursuant to the now-repealed section 20-2-304(b), which conflicted with federal law. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "Webb v. State, ex rel. Department of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement Division" on Justia Law

The parties had one teenage child, S.S. During their contentious dissolution proceedings, S.S. experienced serious issues. In January 2018, the trial court entered a judgment that provided for joint legal and physical custody of S.S., with mother having a 72 percent timeshare. S.S. was able to spend time at either parent’s residence at her discretion. Father was ordered to pay $1,700 in monthly child support. On April 10, 2018, S.S. left mother’s home. S.S. lived full-time with father thereafter. Mother then filed an income withholding order for child support. In July, the court held a custody review hearing. The court ordered reunification therapy, denied mother’s requests to require S.S. to return to her physical custody, and set a custody trial. In February 2019, father requested that he be permitted to cease paying child support, and that mother be ordered to pay him monthly child support and $18,133 in “Jackson” credits for the child support he paid from April 11, 2018. The trial court granted father’s request to modify child support and ordered mother to pay father $18,133 in $1,000 monthly installments. The court of appeal affirmed. The court had discretion to allow a credit for father’s double-satisfaction of his child support obligation. View "Marriage of Siva" on Justia Law

In April 2014, a pregnant Bogdana Alexandrovna Osipova took her young son and daughter to Russia, leaving behind ongoing divorce proceedings in Kansas. By doing so, Osipova deprived Brian Mobley, her soon-to-be ex-husband and the father of her daughter and unborn child, of his joint-custody rights under the Kansas court’s temporary custodial order. In Russia, Osipova gave birth to a girl and instituted her own divorce proceedings. The Russian court ordered Mobley to pay monthly child support. But by then the Kansas court had already awarded Mobley full custody of their two daughters, and he steadfastly refused Osipova’s requests that he pay the Russian court-ordered child support. Eventually, in September 2017, Osipova returned alone to the United States on an ill-fated quest to modify the Kansas order. The FBI promptly arrested Osipova, and she was incarcerated for international parental kidnapping and extortionate interstate communications. A jury sentenced Osipova to the statutory maximum three years on the parental-kidnapping conviction, and to seven years on each extortionate-communications convictions, all to run concurrently. On appeal, Osipova argued the federal district judge should have dismissed the indictment and recused himself from her sentencing. Osipova also argued that insufficient evidence supports her 18 U.S.C. 875(b) convictions and that the court erred by awarding Mobley restitution for attorney’s fees he incurred attempting to obtain physical custody of their two daughters. The Tenth Circuit rejected Osipova's dismissal and recusal arguments, but concurred that insufficient evidence supported the extortionate communications charges. Further, the restitution order was unauthorized by law. The latter part of the trial court's judgment was vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mobley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding Corey Braun in willful contempt of court for failing to hold his ex-wife, Jennifer Braun, harmless from joint mortgage debt on the marital home Corey was awarded in the parties' divorce decree, holding that there was no clear error in the court's factual findings and no abuse of discretion in the court's determination of contempt and the imposition of the sanction in this case.Six years after the divorce, Jennifer filed a pleading alleging that Corey had willfully failed to hold her harmless from the mortgage debt on the home and asked that Corey be held in contempt of court. The trial court found Corey in willful contempt of court. As a sanction, the court imposed a delayed jail sentence and a purge plan that allowed Corey to purge himself of contempt by either refinancing the mortgage in his own name by a certain date or selling the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Corey's conduct violated the hold harmless provision in the decree and in ordering that he either refinance the mortgage or sell the home. View "Braun v. Braun" on Justia Law