Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Sunday Adeyeye, a U.S. citizen, signed an I-864 affidavit of support for his spouse, Adebukola Faramaye, a Nigerian citizen, as a condition of her immigration to the United States. The affidavit required Adeyeye to maintain Faramaye’s income at no less than 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. After filing for divorce, Adeyeye was ordered by the trial court to pay $1,569 per month in support, corresponding to 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, without considering Faramaye’s income.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted Faramaye’s request for support based on the I-864 affidavit and ordered Adeyeye to pay $1,569 per month. The court declined to consider Faramaye’s income, reasoning that the sponsor’s obligation under the I-864 affidavit does not terminate until the sponsored immigrant has worked 40 qualifying quarters, among other conditions. Adeyeye appealed, arguing that the court erred by not considering Faramaye’s income and that her request for attorney fees was premature.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court erred by not considering Faramaye’s income when determining Adeyeye’s support obligation under the I-864 affidavit. The appellate court noted that the sponsor’s obligation is to provide any support necessary to maintain the sponsored immigrant at an income of at least 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, which requires considering the immigrant’s income. The court reversed the order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, directing the trial court to reconsider Adeyeye’s support obligation by taking into account Faramaye’s income. The issue of attorney fees was not addressed at this time. View "In re Marriage of Adeyeye and Faramaye" on Justia Law

Petitioners, T.S. and G.G., an unmarried couple, sought to jointly adopt T.S.'s biological granddaughter, for whom they have had permanent custody since 2017. They filed a petition in the Jackson Circuit Court, Family Division, with the biological mother's consent. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services issued a report stating that Kentucky statutes do not allow unmarried couples to jointly adopt, leading the family court to dismiss the petition.The family court's decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which held that the statutes do not permit joint adoption by unmarried couples. The court noted that either petitioner could adopt the child individually or they could marry to jointly adopt her. Petitioners then sought discretionary review from the Supreme Court of Kentucky.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 199 prohibits unmarried couples from jointly petitioning to adopt. The court held that the statutes do not bar such adoptions. The court interpreted "any person" in KRS 199.470(1) to include unmarried couples, based on statutory construction principles and the precedent set in Krieger v. Garvin. The court also noted that the Cabinet's regulations cannot contravene the adoption statutes.The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the Jackson Circuit Court, Family Division, instructing the Cabinet to investigate and report on the adoption petition as required by KRS 199.510. View "G.G. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services" on Justia Law

Hannah and Manish Mehta married in 2000 and had triplets in 2007. Hannah became the primary caregiver, especially for one child with significant medical needs. Manish filed for divorce in 2019. The trial court granted Hannah exclusive use of the marital home and ordered Manish to pay child support and temporary spousal support. Hannah later secured a paid position with a nonprofit. During the divorce proceedings, Manish expressed concerns about Hannah's ability to maintain the home financially. The trial court's final decree included child support and spousal maintenance for Hannah.The trial court appointed Hannah and Manish as joint managing conservators, with Hannah having the right to designate the children's primary residence. Manish was ordered to pay $2,760 per month in child support and $2,000 per month in spousal maintenance for thirty-six months. Manish requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, challenging the spousal maintenance award. The trial court did not provide additional findings, and Manish appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed the property division but reversed the spousal maintenance award, citing insufficient evidence that Hannah would lack sufficient property to meet her minimum reasonable needs.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the spousal maintenance award. The Supreme Court emphasized that while detailed financial evidence is ideal, courts should not disregard competent qualitative evidence. The court also noted that child-related expenses must be considered when assessing whether a spouse will have sufficient property post-divorce. The Supreme Court found legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court's award of spousal maintenance, including Hannah's role as the primary caregiver for a medically fragile child. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in part and reinstated the trial court's spousal maintenance award. View "Mehta v. Mehta" on Justia Law

An adoptive mother, J.S., declined to take her teenage son, E.K., back into her home due to his history of violent behavior towards her and his siblings. The Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) sought a CHINS 1 adjudication, alleging that the mother failed to provide necessary shelter. At the fact-finding hearing, the mother requested alternative CHINS adjudications based on the child endangering himself or others (CHINS 6) or his fetal alcohol syndrome diagnosis (CHINS 10). The trial court deferred to DCS’s filing decision and entered a CHINS 1 adjudication.The Whitley Circuit Court initially awarded DCS emergency custody of E.K. and later adjudicated him under CHINS 1 after the father admitted to the allegations. The mother contested the CHINS 1 adjudication, leading to a fact-finding hearing. The trial court found that E.K. posed a danger to himself and others but still adjudicated him under CHINS 1, citing the mother’s refusal to provide necessary shelter. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and vacated the CHINS 1 adjudication, finding insufficient evidence that the mother either had the financial means to provide a safe home or failed to seek other reasonable means to do so. The court held that the trial court should have independently assessed whether a CHINS 6 or 10 adjudication was appropriate, rather than deferring to DCS. Due to procedural shortcomings, including the lack of proper notice and participation for E.K., the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "J.S. v. Department of Child Services" on Justia Law

Brandon James Caldwell and Jenny Lynn Caldwell were married in 2008 and later moved to Montana. They separated in June 2020, and Jenny filed for dissolution of marriage, proposing a parenting plan for their three minor children. The District Court issued several interim parenting plans but did not finalize one. The couple reached a Property Settlement Agreement in April 2021, agreeing to divide their assets, including two homes. Disputes arose over the appraisal of their marital home in Highwood, Montana, leading to further court proceedings.The District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, held multiple hearings and allowed a second appraisal of the Highwood property, despite Brandon's objections. The court found the initial appraisal undervalued the property and ordered a new appraisal to ensure an equitable division of assets. The final decree, issued in March 2024, included the second appraisal's value but did not incorporate a final parenting plan, which was an oversight.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court's decision to allow a second appraisal and use its value for property division, finding no abuse of discretion. The court emphasized the need for accurate property valuation to achieve equitable distribution. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the District Court to issue a final parenting plan based on the existing record, as required by Montana law. The final decree was otherwise affirmed. View "Marriage of: Caldwell" on Justia Law

Matthew O. appealed the Family Court's decision to terminate his parental rights to his two sons, N.O. and K.O. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) initially became involved with the family due to the mother's drug use. N.O. was placed in foster care, and K.O., born later, was also placed in the same foster home due to his developmental disability. Matthew worked towards reunification but faced challenges, including his mental health issues and cognitive limitations.The Family Court initially denied DCYF's first petition to terminate Matthew's parental rights, finding that DCYF had not made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children. However, DCYF filed a second petition, and after a trial, the Family Court granted the petition, concluding that Matthew was unfit to parent due to his cognitive limitations and poor judgment, and that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to provide him with services aimed at reunification.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to reunify Matthew with his children by providing tailored services and support. Despite these efforts, Matthew was unable to make sufficient progress in improving his parenting abilities. The Court also noted that Matthew's refusal to consistently engage in mental health treatment was a significant barrier to reunification. The Supreme Court concluded that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Matthew's parental rights, as they were thriving in their foster home and needed permanency. View "In re N.O." on Justia Law

Kathleen M. Barron filed for divorce from John D. Barron in April 2022. The District Court in Bangor held a contested bench trial where both parties testified and submitted evidence, including proposed calculations for the division of assets. The court ordered John to make a $57,790.17 payment to Kathleen to equalize the division of property, or the marital home, which also houses John's business, would be sold.John appealed the decision, arguing that the court did not make sufficient findings to support the equalization payment. He had filed a post-judgment motion for further findings of fact, which the trial court denied. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court noted that the divorce judgment lacked specific findings regarding the valuation and classification of assets, making appellate review impossible. The court highlighted that the trial court must provide express factual findings based on the record to support its decisions.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part and remanded the case for further findings. The court emphasized that the trial court must independently assess the valuation evidence before equitably dividing marital property. The judgment was vacated concerning the distribution of property, while the remainder of the judgment was affirmed. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, allowing the trial court discretion to reopen the evidence if necessary. View "Barron v. Barron" on Justia Law

Sandra Malone (Grandmother) filed a lawsuit against Salvador Galvan (Father) seeking visitation rights with ALG, the child of her deceased daughter. Father and Mother had a child, ALG, in July 2022. They regularly attended family dinners with Mother’s family, including Grandmother. After Mother’s death in an ATV accident caused by Father, Grandmother accused Father of killing Mother and supported his criminal prosecution. Father, concerned about Grandmother’s negative impact on ALG, stopped attending family dinners and discontinued visits between ALG and Grandmother, although he maintained relationships with other family members.The District Court of Albany County held a trial and granted Grandmother visitation rights. The court found that Grandmother had a significant preexisting relationship with ALG and concluded that Father’s decision to discontinue visits with Grandmother was harmful to ALG. The court awarded Grandmother visitation despite acknowledging concerns about her animosity towards Father and the potential negative impact on ALG.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in its findings. It emphasized that Grandmother needed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s decision to restrict visitation was harmful to ALG. The court found that Grandmother did not present any evidence of harm, while Father’s expert testified that visitation with Grandmother could harm ALG due to the hostile relationship between Father and Grandmother. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court violated Father’s constitutional rights as a parent by granting Grandmother visitation without sufficient evidence of harm to ALG.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the lower court clearly erred in finding that Grandmother established harm by clear and convincing evidence. View "Galvan v. Malone" on Justia Law

Tara Gentele and Christopher Gentele were involved in divorce proceedings and attempted to resolve their disputes through mediation. Christopher claimed that a settlement agreement was reached during mediation, but Tara denied this. Christopher then asked the district court to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court found that a settlement agreement had been reached and entered a dissolution decree based on its terms. The decree required Christopher to make equalization payments to Tara and to divide certain credit card rewards points between them. Christopher made the first payment and transferred the rewards points, which Tara accepted. Tara then filed an appeal, arguing that the district court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement.The district court for Lancaster County found that the parties had reached an enforceable settlement agreement during mediation and entered a dissolution decree based on that agreement. Tara accepted the benefits provided by the decree but subsequently filed an appeal challenging the enforcement of the settlement agreement.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that Tara's appeal was precluded by the acceptance of benefits rule. This rule generally prevents an appellant from accepting the benefits of a judgment and then appealing the parts of the judgment that are unfavorable. The court found that Tara's acceptance of the equalization payment and rewards points was inconsistent with her appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the acceptance of benefits rule applied and barred Tara from challenging the decree. View "Gentele v. Gentele" on Justia Law

Brandon and Amanda Sullivan, the biological parents of three young children, passed away, leaving the children in the care of Amanda's parents, Suzanne and August Nicolas. The Nicolases were appointed as the children's emergency and then permanent guardians. Subsequently, they adopted the children. After the adoption, Brandon's parents, Jayne Mecque and Daniel Francis Sullivan, sought and were granted grandparent visitation rights. The Nicolases later moved to vacate this visitation order, arguing that the Sullivans lacked standing to seek visitation post-adoption.The domestic relations court denied the Nicolases' motion, finding that the Sullivans had standing to seek grandparent visitation. The Nicolases appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Sullivans retained their standing to seek visitation despite the adoption. The Nicolases then sought review from the Supreme Court of Colorado.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and determined that under section 19-1-103(70)(a), C.R.S. (2021), grandparent standing is limited to those who are currently the parents of a child's father or mother. The court held that following an adoption, the parents of a child's former mother or father are no longer considered "grandparents" under the statute. Therefore, the Sullivans lacked standing to seek grandparent visitation after the Nicolases adopted the children. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re The Parental Responsibilities Concerning Children K.M.S." on Justia Law