Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the custody of a minor child, M.M., who was removed from her mother's custody due to the mother's drug use and subsequent arrest. After the mother's death, M.M. was placed with foster parents, A.P.-1 and A.P.-2. The child's maternal aunt, E.L., intervened to seek custody. The West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) initially opposed E.L.'s intervention, alleging she had assisted in the child's "kidnapping" by the maternal grandmother, an allegation that was later unsubstantiated. E.L. moved from California to West Virginia to be closer to M.M. and was granted visitation rights.The Circuit Court of Putnam County held three permanency hearings and ultimately decided that it was in M.M.'s best interest to be placed permanently with E.L. The court made extensive findings of fact, noting that M.M. had formed a bond with E.L. during visitations and that E.L. could maintain M.M.'s relationships with her biological family. The court also considered that E.L. was well-equipped to meet M.M.'s medical and developmental needs and had no other children in her home, unlike the foster parents who had three other children with varying special needs.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the circuit court had conducted a meticulous best-interest-of-the-child analysis, considering the child's bonds with both the foster parents and E.L., and the ability of E.L. to preserve important familial relationships. The court found no error in the circuit court's placement determination and concluded that the decision to grant permanent custody to E.L. was supported by the evidence and was in M.M.'s best interest. View "In re M.M" on Justia Law

The case involves a mother (Mother) whose parental rights to her children, D.H., M.H., and J.S., were terminated by the Circuit Court of Berkeley County. The Department of Human Services (DHS) received multiple referrals over the years regarding allegations of abuse and neglect against Mother, but initially did not file a petition. The father of D.H. and M.H. filed for a protective order after M.H. disclosed sexual abuse, leading to an administrative action and the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the children. Subsequently, the father, with the GAL, filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging physical abuse, substance abuse, and failure to care for the children.The circuit court ordered the DHS to join the petition despite its initial objection. Mother contested the allegations, claiming the children were coached to lie. She requested public funding for an expert to review the children's forensic interviews, which the court denied, finding the expert unnecessary. The court conducted in camera interviews with D.H. and M.H., finding their disclosures consistent and credible. During the adjudicatory hearings, various witnesses, including the children’s therapist and forensic interviewer, testified about the abuse and neglect. The court found the allegations proven by clear and convincing evidence and adjudicated Mother as an abusing and neglecting parent.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court did not violate the separation of powers doctrine by ordering the DHS to join the petition, as both the judiciary and executive branches have overlapping obligations to protect the best interests of children. The court also found no error in denying Mother’s request to hire an expert, as the proposed testimony would not aid the court, which is the trier of fact. The court affirmed the circuit court’s findings of abuse and neglect by clear and convincing evidence and upheld the termination of Mother’s parental rights, noting her failure to acknowledge the full extent of the abuse and neglect. View "In re D.H., M.H., and J.S." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between divorced parents over the custody and visitation rights of their minor children. The plaintiff father was granted sole legal custody of the children, while the defendant mother was given limited visitation rights. The trial court's order allowed the plaintiff to unilaterally suspend the defendant's visitation with their son, R, if he reasonably determined, after consulting with R's therapist, that the visits were causing negative behavioral or emotional consequences for R.The trial court initially granted the plaintiff's motion to modify custody, awarding him sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the children. The court found that the defendant's behavior, including her mistrust and denigration of the plaintiff, negatively impacted the children. The court's order allowed the defendant to have supervised visits with R, which could become unsupervised if the plaintiff approved. However, the plaintiff was also given the authority to suspend the defendant's visitation if he believed it was harming R.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court's order improperly delegated judicial authority to the plaintiff. The court held that a trial court cannot delegate its statutory duty to decide custody and visitation matters to a nonjudicial entity, including a parent. The court emphasized that only the trial court has the authority to modify visitation orders and that delegating this authority to a parent creates a situation ripe for abuse and misjudgment. The court reversed the trial court's order to the extent that it allowed the plaintiff to unilaterally suspend the defendant's visitation rights and remanded the case for further proceedings on this issue. View "R. H. v. M. H." on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioner, Aaron W., appealed an order from the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (ICA) that dismissed his appeal of a family court order. The family court had disqualified Aaron W.'s attorney from representing him in a divorce proceeding due to a conflict of interest, as the attorney had previously represented both parties in a related personal injury case. The family court's order included language indicating it was a final, appealable order.Initially, Aaron W. sought a writ of prohibition from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to prevent the family court from ruling on the disqualification motion, arguing that the family court lacked jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the writ, and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, holding that family courts have the authority to disqualify attorneys in cases of conflict of interest.Aaron W. then appealed the family court's disqualification order to the ICA, which dismissed the appeal, concluding that the order was interlocutory and that it lacked jurisdiction over such appeals. Aaron W. subsequently appealed the ICA's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the ICA's dismissal, holding that the family court's disqualification order was not a final order because it did not terminate the litigation on the merits. The court explained that the ICA generally does not have appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, as specified by West Virginia Code § 51-11-4(d)(8). The court also noted that the family court's inclusion of finality language in its order did not transform the interlocutory order into a final, appealable order. Consequently, the ICA correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Aaron W. v. Evelyn W." on Justia Law

Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino were engaged to be married, with Johnson giving Settino a $70,000 diamond engagement ring and two wedding bands. Johnson also paid for various expenses, including part of Settino's dental implant surgery. However, Johnson ended the engagement after discovering messages on Settino's phone that led him to believe she was unfaithful, although the trial judge found no evidence of an affair. Settino kept the engagement ring and wedding bands, and Johnson did not pay for the second part of Settino's dental procedure.Johnson sued to recover the engagement ring and wedding bands, and Settino counterclaimed for the cost of the dental procedure. The Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Settino, allowing her to keep the engagement ring and one wedding band, and awarded her damages for the dental procedure, including prejudgment interest from the date of Johnson's complaint. The judge found Johnson at fault for ending the engagement based on his mistaken belief of infidelity.The Appeals Court reversed the decision, ruling that Johnson was not at fault and should recover the engagement ring and wedding band. The court also found that prejudgment interest should be calculated from the date of Settino's counterclaim, not Johnson's complaint. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the concept of fault should not determine the return of engagement rings. The court adopted a no-fault approach, requiring the return of the engagement ring and wedding bands to the donor if the marriage does not occur, regardless of fault. The court also affirmed the need to recalculate prejudgment interest from the date of Settino's counterclaim. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest. View "Johnson v. Settino" on Justia Law

The case involves Wade Bloedow (Husband) and Nicole Maes-Bloedow (Wife), who married in 2017 and filed for divorce in 2022. The district court granted the divorce, divided the marital property, and ordered Husband to pay child support and temporary alimony. Husband appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in property distribution, income calculation for child support, and the award of temporary alimony. He also claimed the court failed to credit him for temporary payments made during the divorce proceedings.The District Court of Sweetwater County initially granted Wife temporary custody of the twins and ordered Husband to pay $3,000 per month in child and spousal support, plus the monthly payment on Wife’s vehicle. The court found Husband in contempt for not paying the full amount and allowed him to purge his contempt by selling marital assets and paying Wife from the proceeds. After a bench trial, the court awarded Wife most of the marital assets and assigned Husband most of the debts, citing his lack of credibility and fraudulent behavior in concealing and dissipating assets.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court found the district court acted within its discretion in determining the equity in the marital home and awarding Wife $75,000. It also upheld the overall property distribution, noting the district court considered the statutory factors and Husband’s fraudulent actions. The court found no abuse of discretion in the income calculation for child support, as the district court reasonably averaged Husband’s income from 2021 and 2022. The award of temporary alimony was also upheld, as the district court found Wife had a need for support and Husband had the ability to pay. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s decision on past due support payments, finding the district court properly credited Husband for payments made during the divorce proceedings. View "Bloedow v. Maes-Bloedow" on Justia Law

A couple with older children volunteered to care for the newborn child of an incarcerated mother struggling with methamphetamine addiction. The mother relapsed multiple times, and the couple eventually became the child's guardians. The mother later sought to terminate the guardianship and raise her child, but the guardians had moved out of state with the child, who had become integrated into their family. The guardians sought to adopt the child, while the mother had made significant improvements in her life and wanted to regain custody.The Iowa District Court for Polk County denied the guardians' petition to terminate the mother's parental rights, finding that the guardians' restrictions on visitation and communication justified the mother's lack of contact with the child. The court noted that the guardians had moved out of state without informing the mother or the court, preventing her from maintaining regular contact.The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, finding that the mother had abandoned the child under Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) by failing to maintain substantial and continuous or repeated contact. The court of appeals determined that the guardians had not placed excessive restrictions on the mother's ability to communicate with the child and that the mother had not exerted sufficient effort to maintain contact.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, concluding that the mother had abandoned the child and that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The court noted that the child had become integrated into the guardians' family and that granting the petition for termination would provide the child with stability and permanency. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "In the Interest of J.V., Minor Child" on Justia Law

The petitioner, K.S., sought certiorari review of orders issued by the Circuit Court in proceedings under RSA chapter 169-C. K.S. argued that the trial court erred in several ways, including denying her access to information she claimed she had a right to, relying on a "reasonable efforts" standard instead of the child's best interest, not holding an evidentiary hearing before approving her placement in a residential treatment program, denying her request to be placed with her father, and denying her request to involve her grandmother in family therapy and other meetings.The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) had filed petitions alleging neglect by K.S.'s parents, leading to K.S. being placed in various out-of-home settings. Eventually, the court granted DCYF legal custody of K.S. and issued a dispositional order finding that returning K.S. to her parents was not in her best interest. K.S. was hospitalized and later placed in a residential treatment program. The court approved these placements and denied K.S.'s requests for reunification with her father and for additional discovery.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and found that many of K.S.'s arguments were moot due to changes in her circumstances, such as her father's surrender of parental rights and her subsequent placements. The court also held that the trial court did not violate K.S.'s due process rights by not holding an evidentiary hearing before approving her placement in an institutional setting, as the established procedures provided sufficient safeguards. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions, concluding that it did not act illegally or unsustainably exercise its discretion. View "Petition of K.S." on Justia Law

The petitioner, G.M., appealed the Circuit Court of Wyoming County's decision to terminate his parental rights to his daughter, S.M. The case began in September 2021 when the Department of Human Services (DHS) received a referral alleging drug use by S.M.'s mother, T.M. Despite a safety plan, T.M. continued to test positive for drugs, and the family was often not home during DHS visits. In March 2022, DHS filed an abuse and neglect petition after finding the home without electricity and a used needle on the counter. The petitioner waived his right to a preliminary hearing and later stipulated to the allegations without his attorney present, leading to his adjudication as an abusing and neglecting parent.The petitioner was granted an improvement period requiring him to undergo various treatments and services. However, he failed multiple drug tests and did not comply with the case plan, leading to the revocation of his improvement period in October 2022. Despite being given another chance to enter in-patient rehabilitation, the petitioner continued to test positive for drugs and was arrested for DUI in January 2023. At the final disposition hearing in March 2023, the court found no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse and neglect could be corrected and terminated the petitioner's parental rights.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court found that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel at the adjudicatory hearing and that the circuit court did not err in accepting his stipulation. The court also upheld the termination of parental rights, citing the petitioner's failure to comply with the improvement period and continued substance abuse, which indicated no reasonable likelihood of correcting the conditions of abuse and neglect. View "In re S.M." on Justia Law

The case involves the Department of Human Services (DHS) assuming dependency jurisdiction over a child, A, born prematurely with special medical needs. Both parents have cognitive disabilities, and due to concerns about their ability to care for A, she was placed in substitute care. DHS provided services to the parents for approximately two years before requesting a change in the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, which the juvenile court approved in August 2022.The juvenile court found that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, but the parents did not make sufficient progress to safely care for A. The court noted that the parents' most significant barrier was their lack of follow-through and unwillingness to attend services. The court also determined that there was no compelling reason why adoption would not be in A's best interest.The parents appealed, arguing that DHS failed to make reasonable efforts tailored to their cognitive disabilities and that the agency displayed cultural and racial insensitivity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, acknowledging DHS's shortcomings but concluding that the totality of DHS's efforts was reasonable.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the lower courts' decisions. The court concluded that DHS's efforts, including multiple referrals to services tailored to the parents' needs, were reasonable. The court also found that the parents' failure to engage in services was a significant barrier to reunification. Additionally, the court determined that there was no compelling reason to conclude that adoption would not be in A's best interest, given the lack of an alternative permanent plan and the child's need for stability. View "Dept. of Human Services v. C. H." on Justia Law