Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

In 2014, a woman and her two children from a previous relationship moved in with a man. They had a child together in 2018 and married in 2019. The man ran a trucking business, and the woman assisted with bookkeeping. She also worked briefly at a mental health facility and later as a secretary at a hospital. The couple separated in March 2022, and the woman filed for divorce shortly thereafter.The District Court of Weston County entered a stipulated decree of divorce in January 2023, settling child custody, visitation, and child support. However, the division of marital property was disputed. A bench trial was held in April, and the court issued its final order in November, dividing the marital property. The court considered the equitable value of the marital home, rental property, livestock, personal vehicles, personal property, and debts. The man was assigned the marital home, while the woman received her retirement funds and an equalization payment from the man.The man appealed to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property. He contended that the court failed to allocate a portion of an IRS debt to the woman and improperly valued his trucking business. The Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s findings for an abuse of discretion and found no clear error. The court noted that the district court had appropriately considered the statutory factors under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114(a) and had made a just and equitable division of the property.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the property division was not so unfair and inequitable that reasonable people could not abide by it. The court also found that the district court had reasonably considered each of the statutory factors and that its ruling did not shock the conscience. View "Regan v. Regan" on Justia Law

The case involves Angelica A. (mother) and Luis C. (father), who have two children, Dezi C. and Joshua C. In 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed petitions to assert dependency jurisdiction over the children due to the parents' substance abuse and domestic violence issues. Both parents denied having Indian heritage on their Parental Notification of Indian Status forms. The juvenile court initially found that ICWA did not apply based on the parents' denials. The children were removed from their parents' custody, and the parents were provided with reunification services, which were later terminated due to non-compliance. The court eventually terminated the parents' rights, concluding the children were adoptable by their paternal grandparents.The mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the Department failed to comply with its duty under ICWA and related California provisions to inquire about the children's possible Indian ancestry from extended family members. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the Department's inquiry was deficient but concluded the error was harmless unless the record suggested a reason to believe the children might be Indian children.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case to resolve the conflict among lower courts regarding the standard for assessing prejudice from an inadequate ICWA inquiry. The Court held that an inadequate Cal-ICWA inquiry requires conditional reversal of the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights. The Department must conduct an adequate inquiry and document it properly. If the juvenile court finds the inquiry proper and concludes ICWA does not apply, the termination order will be reinstated. If ICWA applies, the court must proceed accordingly. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting tribal rights and ensuring compliance with ICWA and Cal-ICWA to determine whether a child is an Indian child. View "In re Dezi C." on Justia Law

Megan Vassilopoulos (Mother) and Kyle Vassilopoulos (Father) were granted a divorce by the District Court of Fremont County. The court awarded Father primary physical custody and decision-making authority over their minor child, LJV, and deviated the presumptive child support amount to zero. The court also divided the marital property, awarding Mother the marital home and other assets, while Father retained his businesses and other personal property. Mother appealed the custody, child support, and property division decisions.The District Court of Fremont County initially issued a temporary custody order, granting Mother primary physical custody and Father visitation rights. After a three-day bench trial, the court awarded joint legal custody, with Father having primary physical custody and decision-making authority. The court also deviated the presumptive child support amount to zero, citing the number of days LJV was with Mother and her provision of health insurance. In a subsequent two-day bench trial, the court divided the marital property, awarding Mother the marital home and other assets, while Father retained his businesses and other personal property.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s custody and property division orders, finding no abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court adequately considered the child’s best interests and the statutory factors for property division. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court abused its discretion by deviating from the presumptive child support amount without fully explaining its reasons. The court reversed and remanded the child support order for further findings based on the evidence in the record. View "Vassilopoulos v. Vassilopoulos" on Justia Law

A natural mother filed a petition to set aside the adoption of her child, D.A.P., more than five years after the final adoption decree. She claimed that the adoption was based on fraudulent misrepresentations that it would be an "open" adoption, allowing her continued contact with the child. The adoption was finalized on July 6, 2017, and the mother alleged that she was misled into believing she would maintain contact with her child post-adoption.The Neshoba County Chancery Court denied the mother's request for access to adoption records in 2021, citing the statute of limitations and lack of good cause. In 2022, the mother filed a petition to set aside the adoption decree, claiming fraud, coercion, and misrepresentation. The court dismissed her petition, noting that the mother had not appealed the original adoption judgment and that setting aside the adoption would prejudice the adoptive parents and the child. The court found no evidence of fraud upon the court, as the adoption petition clearly stated the termination of the mother's parental rights.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court's decision. The court held that the mother's petition was untimely, as it was filed more than six months after the adoption decree, which is the statutory limit for challenging an adoption in Mississippi. The court also found no fraud upon the court, as there was no sworn testimony or filing indicating an open adoption. The court emphasized the importance of finality in adoption proceedings to ensure stability and security for the child. View "In the Matter of the Adoption of D.A.S." on Justia Law

Mark Rath and Heather Zins share a child, A.J.O., born in 2004. Zins was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Rath was ordered to pay child support. A.J.O. turned 18 in November 2022, ending Rath's ongoing support obligation, but he had accrued arrears. Rath was served with an order to show cause for civil contempt due to non-payment. After an evidentiary hearing, a judicial referee found Rath in contempt and ordered him to make monthly payments towards his arrears, with a suspended 20-day jail sentence contingent on a future hearing.Rath sought review by the District Court of Burleigh County, which adopted the judicial referee's findings. Rath appealed, arguing violations of his right to counsel, errors in child support calculations, and that the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits the State's ability to collect more than fifty percent of his income. He also claimed the defense of laches and third-party standing should prevent enforcement of his obligations.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case under a clearly erroneous standard. The court held that Rath's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the contempt hearing did not result in immediate incarceration, and procedural safeguards were followed. The court also found that Rath's child support obligation continued despite temporary custody by the division of juvenile services and that the doctrine of laches does not apply to child support arrearages. Additionally, the court ruled that the State and Zins have standing to collect arrears even after the child reached the age of majority, and the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act does not limit the State's collection efforts in this context. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Burleigh County Social Service Board v. Rath" on Justia Law

Bijan Boutiques, LLC (Bijan) appealed a summary judgment in favor of Rosamari Isong. Bijan sought to void the property distribution in the marital dissolution judgment between Isong and her former husband, Richard Milam Akubiro, under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). Bijan argued that the judgment was fraudulent as it awarded Isong the couple’s only U.S. property, making it difficult to enforce a judgment Bijan had against Akubiro without incurring significant expenses to pursue foreign assets.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Bijan’s complaint was barred by Family Code section 916, subdivision (a)(2), which protects property received in a marital dissolution from being liable for a spouse’s debt unless the debt was assigned to the receiving spouse. The court found that the marital dissolution judgment was not a product of a negotiated settlement but was adjudicated by the court, thus not subject to the UVTA.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that Family Code section 916 precludes Bijan from enforcing its judgment against the property awarded to Isong. The court distinguished this case from Mejia v. Reed, which allowed UVTA claims against marital settlement agreements, noting that the dissolution judgment here was court-adjudicated, not a private agreement. The court also rejected Bijan’s arguments that the judgment was obtained by fraud and that the Chino property should not have been subject to division, affirming that the property was presumed to be community property under Family Code section 2581.The appellate court concluded that Bijan could not satisfy its judgment against Akubiro by executing on the property awarded to Isong and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Isong. View "Bijan Boutiques v. Isong" on Justia Law

Gregory R. Flagg filed for divorce from Shauna K. Bartlett in 2012, resulting in a settlement agreement that included shared parental rights and responsibilities, with a child support order requiring Flagg to pay $81 weekly. In 2021, Bartlett moved to modify the child support order, and Flagg cross-moved to modify the divorce judgment and child support order, citing substantial changes in circumstances. The District Court initially granted Flagg's motion, determining that Bartlett did not provide substantially equal care and awarded primary residence to Flagg without child support. Bartlett then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment.The District Court later amended its judgment, granting Bartlett's motion to modify child support and denying Flagg's cross-motion. The court found that although Flagg provided more care, the level of care had not significantly changed since the original agreement. The court concluded that the care provided by both parents was substantially equal and modified Flagg's child support obligation to $185 weekly. Flagg appealed, arguing that the court erred in determining that the parties provided substantially equal care.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court had abused its discretion by failing to properly assess whether the parties provided substantially equal care for the purpose of determining child support. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the amended judgment, the amended child support order, and the order denying Flagg's motions for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the parties are providing substantially equal care and to make consistent findings of fact and conclusions of law. View "Flagg v. Bartlett" on Justia Law

The case involves a divorce proceeding between Gregory Landgraf (husband) and Natasha Landgraf (wife), who have two minor children. The wife challenges the Circuit Court's determination of the husband's temporary child support obligation, specifically regarding whether the husband's irregular income should be considered for child support purposes. The husband receives irregular income from New England Industries (NEI), a subchapter S corporation, to offset his shareholder tax liability and for succession insurance premiums.Initially, the trial court issued a final divorce decree in 2018, which included a child support award. The wife appealed, and the higher court vacated and remanded the trial court's determination regarding the husband's irregular income. On remand in 2020, the circuit court issued a new temporary child support order, requiring the husband to pay a percentage of his irregular income, which was less than the applicable percentage set forth in the child support formula. Both parties moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. The court treated NEI's distributions to the husband as "gross income" and invited the parties to prepare an interlocutory appeal statement.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The court addressed two questions: whether cash distributions received by a corporate shareholder to pay personal tax liability and distributions for succession insurance premiums are available for child support purposes. The court answered both questions affirmatively, concluding that these distributions are dividends and bonuses, respectively, and are available for child support purposes. The court also clarified that "net income" for child support purposes is calculated using standard deductions published by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, regardless of actual employer withholding.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re Landgraf" on Justia Law

The case involves the divorce of Jose A. Saldana and Daisy M. DeJesus, who married in 2004 and separated in 2009. During their marriage, Saldana purchased a home on Whitmarsh Street, which was later transferred to include DeJesus on the title. After their separation, DeJesus moved to Pennsylvania and later returned to Rhode Island, purchasing another property on Atwells Avenue with her mother. DeJesus filed for divorce in 2018, and the Family Court awarded her the Whitmarsh property, while Saldana retained his pension.The Family Court granted the divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences and divided the couple's assets accordingly. Saldana did not appeal the final judgment. Later, DeJesus filed a motion to hold Saldana in contempt for not cooperating with refinancing the Whitmarsh property. Saldana filed a motion to vacate the final judgment, arguing that it did not reflect their agreement and that DeJesus had not disclosed all her assets. The Family Court magistrate denied this motion, and Saldana did not appeal.Saldana then filed a second motion to vacate, which was partially granted regarding the Atwells property but denied concerning the Whitmarsh property. The Family Court justice upheld the magistrate's decision, and Saldana appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's order, noting that Saldana's second motion to vacate was untimely and should have been dismissed. The issue of the Atwells property remains pending for further proceedings. View "DeJesus v. Saldana" on Justia Law

Marina Palomarez and Matthew Wilcox were married for over 20 years before separating in 2015 and finalizing their divorce in 2019. During their marriage, they lived a middle-class lifestyle, raising two children and acquiring a family home. Palomarez primarily worked part-time jobs and stayed home to raise their children, while Wilcox managed a business, Premier Power Sports, which he purchased with loans. After their separation, the business grew significantly, and Wilcox's income increased. Palomarez, on the other hand, continued to work in lower-paying jobs.In the initial trial, the Yakima County Superior Court awarded Wilcox the business and Palomarez the family home and other assets. The court also ordered Wilcox to pay $1,000 per month in spousal maintenance for four years. Palomarez appealed, and the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the decision, instructing the trial court to reconsider Wilcox's income and the spousal maintenance award. On remand, the trial court awarded Palomarez $4,000 per month in spousal maintenance for 11 years, considering Wilcox's increased income and the disparity in their earning capacities.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that while a requesting spouse's need must be considered, it is not a prerequisite for awarding spousal maintenance. The court emphasized that the trial court must consider all statutory factors under RCW 26.09.090, including the financial resources of the requesting spouse, the standard of living during the marriage, and the ability of the paying spouse to meet their own needs while providing support. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $4,000 per month in spousal maintenance for 11 years, as it had considered all relevant factors and the specific circumstances of the case. The Court of Appeals' decision was affirmed. View "In re the Marriage of Wilcox" on Justia Law