Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant was charged with terrorizing—domestic violence, a class C felony, after an incident involving his ex-wife, who is also the mother of his minor child. The district court imposed a pre-dispositional order prohibiting contact with the victim, initially for thirty days. After the defendant pled guilty, the court sentenced him to two years, including three days to serve (with credit for time served) and two years of supervised probation. As a condition of probation, the court extended the no-contact order for two years, prohibiting all direct or indirect contact with the victim, including communication relevant to their minor child.After sentencing, the defendant requested an exception to allow necessary communications with the victim regarding court-ordered parenting time with their child. The district court declined, stating the defendant was not prohibited from having contact with his child but failed to provide any method for arranging parenting time, given the victim’s residential responsibility and the communication restrictions. The defendant appealed the judgment and the order extending the no-contact provision.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that, although the district court acted within statutory limits and did not rely on any impermissible factor (so the sentence was not illegal), it abused its discretion by failing to provide a means for the defendant to arrange contact with his child or to explain why no such method was allowed. The court determined that, under these circumstances, the blanket prohibition on contact with the victim—including for purposes of exercising parental rights—was arbitrary and not the result of a reasoned decision. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the criminal judgment and the order extending the order prohibiting contact and remanded for resentencing, instructing the district court to consider alternatives that would permit the defendant to exercise his parental rights. View "State v. Maher" on Justia Law

The case concerns divorced parents who share a minor child. After their 2019 divorce, the mother was awarded primary residential responsibility, with the judgment affirmed on appeal. In 2024, the father moved to modify the custody arrangement, citing a material change in circumstances and seeking joint, and later, primary residential responsibility. Following hearings in 2025, the District Court of Burleigh County granted the father primary residential responsibility, established a parenting plan for the mother, and entered a second amended judgment. The mother appealed, arguing that the district court erred by modifying custody without finding a material change in circumstances, violated her due process rights, improperly delegated authority to the child and a counselor regarding parenting time, and suspended child support without adequate findings. She also asserted cumulative errors and alleged parental alienation. The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court’s findings on the material change of circumstances, best interests factors, and award of primary residential responsibility were not clearly erroneous. The court determined that most of the mother’s arguments were inadequately briefed and thus were not considered on appeal, except for her claim regarding the delegation of parenting time authority. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court improperly delegated its authority over parenting time to both the minor child and her therapist, allowing them to determine the conditions and occurrence of the mother’s contact with the child. The court found that the district court failed to provide sufficient findings or a clear link between the mother’s conduct and potential harm to the child that would justify such a restriction. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings limited to parenting time. View "Vetter v. Vetter" on Justia Law

An infant girl was discovered severely wounded on an Afghan battlefield by U.S. forces in 2019. With no known surviving family and urgent medical needs, she was transferred to U.S. military care. Joshua and Stephanie Mast, learning of her plight while stationed in Afghanistan, initiated legal proceedings in Virginia, ultimately receiving an adoption order in 2020. The initial court found compelling evidence that the child was stateless, her parents were deceased, and Afghan authorities were unwilling or unable to care for her. The Masts were found credible, and the adoption was supported by the Department of Social Services and a guardian ad litem. Later, A.A. and F.A. filed a petition to vacate the adoption, claiming Afghan law made them the child’s guardians and the adoption was procured by fraud. The Circuit Court of Fluvanna County, and subsequently the Court of Appeals of Virginia, found that Code § 63.2-1216—which bars collateral or direct attacks on adoption orders after six months—did not apply, relying on various legal theories including “de facto parent” status and federal preemption. On review, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that Code § 63.2-1216’s plain language bars all attacks on final adoption orders after six months, including those based on alleged fraud, procedural errors, or lack of jurisdiction, unless the challenger is a legal parent with a fundamental liberty interest. The Court rejected the “de facto parent” constitutional argument, found no federal preemption, and determined that neither the factual record nor law supported exempting the challengers from the statute of repose. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the petition to vacate the adoption order with prejudice. View "Mast v. A.A." on Justia Law

A father and mother came to the attention of child protective authorities in Montana due to ongoing methamphetamine use, domestic violence, and criminal behavior. In 2019, the Department of Public Health and Human Services removed their two young children from a home where multiple adults were abusing drugs. Both children were eligible for tribal enrollment and thus protected under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Despite efforts, no suitable ICWA-compliant placement was found, so the children remained in licensed foster care. The father was frequently incarcerated or otherwise unavailable, and both parents struggled to comply with treatment plans designed to facilitate reunification. Over the course of more than five years, the father participated intermittently in services but repeatedly relapsed, became homeless, and was arrested for new criminal offenses.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, adjudicated the children as youths in need of care, granted temporary legal custody to the Department, and repeatedly extended custody while reviewing the parents’ compliance with treatment plans. After failed attempts at reunification and kinship placement, and after considering the possibility of guardianship, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights (she did not appeal). The Department then petitioned to terminate the father’s rights, presenting evidence of the father's noncompliance and ongoing instability. Tribal representatives were given notice and opportunities to intervene and express their preference for guardianship over termination, but did not actively participate in the final hearing.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decision to terminate the father’s parental rights. The Court held that the Department had made “active efforts” as required by ICWA, the father failed to complete his treatment plan and was unlikely to become fit within a reasonable time, and continued custody would likely result in serious harm to the children. The Court also held that the father lacked standing to assert claims based on tribal preference for guardianship, as those claims belonged to the tribes or children. View "In re S.A. and J.P." on Justia Law

After a divorce in 1996, a father was ordered by the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court to pay both family and child support. Over the ensuing years, he failed to fully comply with the court’s orders, moved out of state and later out of the country, and was declared in contempt for his failure to pay support. Nearly two decades later, after the youngest child had reached the age of majority, the father and mother discussed resolving the outstanding child support arrearages, which, including interest, totaled approximately $545,000. The father agreed to pay half that amount, and made several payments, but when he requested that the mother sign a written accord and satisfaction releasing him from any remaining arrearages, she declined.The father then filed a request in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, seeking a ruling that there was an enforceable agreement to resolve the arrearages. The superior court denied his request, finding that the parties did not reach a final, binding agreement and that there was no bona fide dispute as to the amount owed. The court also concluded that any purported accord and satisfaction was unenforceable under California law.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the superior court’s order. The appellate court held that, consistent with California’s strong public policy, parents are precluded from contractually waiving or forgiving past due child support arrearages, even after the child has reached the age of majority and there is no longer a current support order. The court further found substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that there was no bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed, and no enforceable agreement was formed. The appellate court also rejected the father’s arguments for waiver and estoppel. The order was affirmed. View "Marriage of Allen" on Justia Law

David Hughes and Dana Waters were in a relationship beginning in 2016 while living in Washington. During their relationship, Hughes raised Waters’s son, C.H., as his own, and later they had another son, D.H. Following their separation, they shared custody on a rotating basis. Hughes moved to North Dakota in late 2020, and the children visited him there during holidays and summers. In April 2023, Waters moved with the children to California. That summer, Hughes flew the children to North Dakota for vacation and later informed Waters he would not return them, citing concerns for their safety.After Hughes’s decision to keep the children, both parties initiated legal proceedings: Waters filed a complaint in California on August 9, 2023, but did not serve Hughes until October 20, 2023. Hughes began a child custody action in North Dakota by serving Waters on August 30, 2023. The California court issued ex parte orders for the return of the children, first claiming emergency jurisdiction, then issuing a non-temporary order, both before Hughes was served. The North Dakota District Court of McKenzie County held a hearing, invited arguments on jurisdiction, and communicated with the California court. Eventually, California transferred its case to Washington, although there was no evidence of a pending Washington action.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The court held that neither California nor North Dakota was the children’s “home state,” and no other state had a pending child custody action or declined jurisdiction. North Dakota properly assumed jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-12(1)(d). The court affirmed the district court’s order granting primary residential responsibility of D.H. and C.H. to Hughes and rejected Waters’s additional challenges. View "Hughes v. Waters" on Justia Law

A divorced couple’s agreed decree required them to sell community property, including their marital home, and divide the proceeds equally. The decree further required each party to deliver certain personal property to a receiver and specified that if either failed to deliver or damaged property, the fair market value of the missing or damaged items would be assessed against that party and “accounted for” out of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home. After the divorce, the wife alleged that the husband had damaged and failed to deliver certain property. The trial court found numerous violations, but rather than determining the specific value of the loss, it awarded the wife all proceeds from the sale of the marital home.The trial court, a district court in Texas, conducted hearings and ultimately ordered the entirety of the marital home’s sale proceeds be given to the wife, along with attorney’s fees and costs, without making findings about the fair market value of the alleged losses. The husband appealed, contending that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by impermissibly modifying the substantive property division in the decree. The Twelfth Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the trial court’s order effectively redivided property in violation of Texas Family Code Section 9.007, and vacated the order, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce the decree and award damages for breach, but it erred by reallocating all proceeds from the marital home without evidence of actual damages. The high court reversed the appellate court’s decision, clarified that the trial court’s error did not deprive it of enforcement jurisdiction, and remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine actual damages as required by the decree and statute. View "MORRISON v. MORRISON" on Justia Law

Ashley Cull and Andrew Cull were married in 2013 and have two children, born in 2016 and 2019. After initiating a divorce in 2021, a stipulated judgment was entered in January 2022, with Andrew awarded primary residential responsibility for the children. An amended judgment in March 2022 reaffirmed this arrangement. In February 2025, Ashley filed a motion to modify primary residential responsibility, arguing that material changes had occurred since the prior order which warranted a shift in custody to her. She submitted declarations from herself and her parents, alleging that Andrew delegated parenting to his mother, lacked routine in his home, and made unsafe decisions affecting the children.The Northeast Judicial District Court, Pembina County, reviewed Ashley’s motion and supporting documents, along with Andrew’s fourteen counter-declarations. The district court denied Ashley’s motion, concluding that she failed to establish a prima facie case under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6, as there was no material change in circumstances nor evidence that modification was necessary to serve the children’s best interests. The court found much of Ashley’s evidence was not based on firsthand knowledge or was not competent, and that extended family involvement and Andrew’s occupation as a farmer were known factors at the time of the original custody determination.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s order de novo. It held that Ashley Cull did not provide competent evidence of a material change in circumstances or show that modification was necessary for the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to modify primary residential responsibility, concluding that the statutory requirements for a prima facie case were not met. View "Cull v. Cull" on Justia Law

The parties in this case, who were never married but cohabitated and share two minor children, separated in early 2023 after their relationship deteriorated. The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Kent County Family Court seeking joint custody, primary placement of the children, and child support. Shortly after, the defendant filed a separate complaint alleging abuse, resulting in an ex parte temporary protection order and temporary custody for her. Over the following year, the Family Court issued various orders, including appointing a guardian ad litem, scheduling mediation, amending visitation, and addressing discovery issues related to the plaintiff’s income.After several hearings, the Family Court entered four orders on June 25, 2024. These included a visitation order (not challenged on appeal), an order granting primary placement of the children to the defendant, a child-support guideline worksheet setting the plaintiff’s monthly obligation at $1,254, and a handwritten order memorializing child-support details and other arrangements. The plaintiff objected, contending that there was no agreement or sufficient opportunity to present evidence, and that the best interests of the children were not properly considered.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case. It found that the Family Court did not make adequate factual findings regarding the children’s best interests to support the order granting primary placement to the defendant, as required by established precedent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the disputed portion of the placement order. However, the Court affirmed the child-support guideline worksheet, determining that the plaintiff was bound by his attorney’s actions in signing the worksheet and that no special circumstances warranted overturning it. As the same support amount was memorialized in the handwritten order, the plaintiff’s appeal of that order was deemed moot. The case was remanded to the Family Court for further proceedings. View "Conway v. Orenberg" on Justia Law

A man and woman who had been in a relationship for five years were married in a ceremony on a dock, officiated by a minister, with only the groom’s minor son physically present at the ceremony. Two adults had previously signed the marriage license as witnesses, but only one of them was arguably present nearby in a vehicle; the other was definitely absent. After the ceremony, the marriage license was properly filed and accepted by the state. The couple lived as husband and wife until the groom’s unexpected death five months later. Following the death, a dispute arose between the widow and the decedent’s father, who acts as personal representative of the estate, regarding the decedent’s property and home.The decedent’s father sought a declaratory judgment in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, arguing that the widow was not the decedent’s legal spouse because the marriage was not solemnized in the presence of two reputable adult witnesses as required by statute. He contended this failure rendered the marriage void, and sought to prevent the widow from inheriting. The Court of Chancery treated this as a petition for annulment under the Delaware Divorce and Annulment Act, but denied relief, finding that the petitioner lacked standing to seek annulment after the decedent’s death and that minor defects in solemnization do not necessarily void a marriage.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the statutory requirements for marriage and found that, despite the absence of one adult witness, the parties had intended a lawful marriage and acted in good faith. The court held that the witness requirement is directory, not mandatory, and the marriage was not void for lack of a witness. The court affirmed the judgment below, holding that the marriage was valid and the petitioner could not seek its annulment. View "Lafon v. Felmlee" on Justia Law