Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Kristine Gail Walden and Shay Alan Walden were married in April 2016 and separated in June 2020. Kristine initiated divorce proceedings in September 2022. At the time of the trial in December 2023, Kristine was 54 and worked part-time, while Shay, 53, was self-employed. The district court heard testimony about their assets, debts, and the conduct leading to the breakdown of their marriage, including domestic violence by Shay that resulted in a permanent eye injury to Kristine. The court divided the marital property and debt, ordered Shay to pay spousal support of $1,000 per month for seven years, property payments totaling $43,587, and attorney’s fees of $8,350. Shay was also assigned a debt of $35,433.66 incurred after the divorce proceedings began.The district court awarded spousal support based on the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, considering the parties' ages, earning abilities, health, and financial circumstances. The court found Kristine had a monthly income of $2,400 and expenses of $6,400, while Shay had a gross monthly income of $12,500 and expenses of $5,017. The court concluded Kristine needed spousal support and Shay had the ability to pay without undue hardship. Shay’s argument that the court deviated from statutory limits for spousal support was dismissed as the applicable version of the statute was correctly applied.The court’s property and debt distribution was found to be equitable, considering the short-term nature of the marriage and the contributions of each party. Shay’s arguments against the distribution of the marital home’s equity and Kristine’s medical debt were rejected. The court’s decision to assign Shay the debt incurred after the divorce proceedings was also upheld.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the court did not clearly err in its findings and that the award of attorney’s fees was justified based on Shay’s actions that increased the costs of the proceedings. View "Walden v. Walden" on Justia Law

Brett Kingstone and Trisa Tedrow Kingstone were married in Florida in July 2020 and have one minor child, L.R.K., born in 2021, who has hemophilia, Fragile X syndrome, and developmental and speech delays. The couple separated in August 2022, and Brett initiated a divorce action in Florida and a child custody action in North Dakota in March 2023. The Florida court granted the divorce in August 2023, but did not address child-related issues. In December 2023, the North Dakota district court awarded Trisa primary residential responsibility for L.R.K. and set Brett's child support at $5,000 per month, including an upward deviation of $1,500.Brett Kingstone appealed, arguing the district court erred in several aspects, including reliance on expert testimony, calculation of his net income, the upward deviation of child support, and refusal to amend the judgment. The district court had denied Brett's motion to amend the judgment but clarified the exchange location for L.R.K. would be at the child's home unless mutually agreed otherwise.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the expert witness to determine Brett's income, including income from irrevocable trusts and recurring capital gains. However, the Supreme Court found the district court's findings insufficient to support the upward deviation in child support under the guidelines and remanded for additional findings and redetermination. The Supreme Court also directed the district court to reconsider the amount of the life insurance policy based on the redetermined child support obligation. The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the exchange provisions for L.R.K. and the requirement for Brett to maintain a life insurance policy for the child. View "Kingstone v. Kingstone" on Justia Law

Bryan Carrier and Elizabeth Allmendinger were involved in a relationship that resulted in the birth of a child in 2017. In April 2018, the district court established Carrier’s child support obligation at $3,500 per month. Carrier had two more children after this judgment. In April 2023, the State of North Dakota filed a motion to amend the judgment to reduce Carrier’s child support obligation based on his income information, which Carrier supported. Allmendinger requested an evidentiary hearing and a continuance for discovery.The District Court of Burleigh County held multiple evidentiary hearings on the State’s motion. The State requested a reduction in child support to $1,200 per month from May 2023 and $1,168 per month from January 2024. Carrier agreed with the State’s calculations, while Allmendinger opposed the motion, proposing a higher amount. In May 2024, the district court denied the State’s motion, finding the information provided by the State and Carrier unreliable. However, the court allowed for a child support calculation reduced for multiple families based on the original 2018 financial information. Allmendinger submitted a proposed amended judgment, which the court adopted, setting Carrier’s obligation at $3,278 per month starting June 1, 2024.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. Carrier argued that the district court erred in dismissing the motion to modify child support, claiming the court wrongly found the information provided unreliable. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, as evidence supported the court’s determination that Carrier was evasive and untruthful about his financial information. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, denying the motion to modify child support. Allmendinger’s request for attorney’s fees was denied, as the appeal was not deemed frivolous. View "State v. Carrier" on Justia Law

Jared Peterka, a neighbor and tenant of John and Irene Janda, assumed the lease of their farmland in 2012. The lease was renewed every three years, and in 2019, a right of first refusal for Peterka to purchase the land was added. In October 2018, the Jandas established a living trust and conveyed the property into it, with their daughters as residuary beneficiaries. In June 2021, the Jandas and Peterka executed an option to purchase the property. Shortly after, guardianship proceedings were initiated, and the Jandas were found incapacitated. The guardians rescinded the option to purchase.Peterka filed a complaint for declaratory judgment to validate the option to purchase. The Defendants counterclaimed, arguing the option was the result of undue influence and that the Jandas lacked capacity. After a four-day bench trial, the District Court of Traill County found the option to purchase was facially valid and not a product of undue influence. However, it ruled the option was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas' lack of capacity and dismissed Peterka’s complaint.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Peterka argued the district court erred in its findings on capacity. The Supreme Court clarified that the capacity to enter into a contract and the capacity under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 are distinct. The court found the district court did not misstate the law and its findings were supported by evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the option to purchase was voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02 due to the Jandas being of unsound mind but not entirely without understanding. View "Peterka v. Janda" on Justia Law

Christian D., the father of a three-year-old child, appealed a judgment by the District Court (South Paris) that terminated his parental rights. The court found him unfit as a parent and determined that termination was in the child's best interest. The father argued that the court abused its discretion by not making specific findings of fact to support its decision and by not adequately considering a permanency guardianship as an alternative to termination.The District Court found that the father was unfit based on three grounds under 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii), and (iv). The court noted that the child had been in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for 26 of his 35 months and that the child needed permanency, which the father could not provide in a timely manner. The child had been living in a stable and nurturing foster home with his maternal grandparents, who were willing to adopt him.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that the District Court properly exercised its discretion and that the record supported the findings that termination of the father's parental rights and adoption were in the child's best interest. The court also rejected the father's argument that Rule 52(a) precluded reliance on inferences or implicit findings, noting that the trial court's findings were sufficient to support the judgment. The court emphasized the importance of permanency for the child and found that the father's inability to provide a stable environment justified the termination of his parental rights. View "In re Child of Christian D." on Justia Law

Mother conceived M.N. with Father in summer 2020. Before M.N. was born, Mother and her boyfriend initiated adoption proceedings without informing the adoption agency about Father. M.N. was born on March 23, 2021, and Father requested a DNA test at the hospital. In April 2021, Mother and her boyfriend signed adoption consent forms, and the adoption agency petitioned for termination of parental rights. After being identified as a potential father, Father was served notice of the adoption and filed a paternity action within the required timeframe. Genetic testing confirmed Father as the biological father.The juvenile court terminated Father’s parental rights, finding he failed to file with the putative fathers registry. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding the juvenile court improperly terminated Father’s rights under § 8-533(B)(6) without considering his rights as a potential father under § 8-106. The court of appeals held that genetic testing established Father as a presumed legal father, exempting him from filing with the putative fathers registry.The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case to determine if a potential father served with a § 8-106 notice must file a notice of a claim of paternity with the putative fathers registry under § 8-106.01. The court held that a potential father identified and served notice under § 8-106(G) is not required to file with the putative fathers registry. The court emphasized that the potential fathers statute and the putative fathers statute address separate classifications of fathers, each with distinct rights and obligations. The court vacated parts of the court of appeals’ opinion, reversed the juvenile court’s termination order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.N." on Justia Law

A father of four was accused of sexually abusing his 12-year-old daughter, leading to the removal of his children from the home. The primary issue was whether the father's conduct, including washing his daughter's breasts during lengthy showers, could be considered normal caretaking or affection. The father argued that the superior court relied on facts not in evidence, violated his Fifth Amendment rights by drawing an adverse inference from his refusal to testify, and erred in concluding that his conduct amounted to sexual abuse.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Kenai, found all four children in need of aid on grounds of sexual abuse and neglect. The court noted that the father had invoked his right to remain silent, and it drew a negative inference from his silence, concluding that sexual contact had occurred. The court also found that the children were at substantial risk of being sexually abused because the mother failed to stop the father's conduct and continued to support him. The court issued a temporary custody and adjudication order, and later granted the State's petition for release of the children from state custody.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's adjudication order. The court held that the superior court did not clearly err in making its factual findings and that it was permissible to draw an adverse inference from the father's refusal to testify. The court concluded that the father's conduct could not be reasonably construed as normal caretaking, interaction, or affection, and thus, the children were in need of aid due to sexual abuse. The court did not address other arguments raised by the father, as the adjudication of one child in need of aid was sufficient to sustain the order. View "Brad S. v. State" on Justia Law

A grandmother petitioned for guardianship of her adult granddaughter, who had developmental disabilities and other health issues. In 2012, the Superior Court of Alaska found the granddaughter incapacitated and appointed the grandmother as her guardian. However, the guardianship was terminated in 2014 after the grandmother failed to submit a required report. From 2014 to 2022, the grandmother and the granddaughter’s sister provided informal care. In 2022, Adult Protective Services (APS) and medical providers raised concerns about the granddaughter’s care, leading APS to file a new petition for guardianship.The Superior Court of Alaska initially appointed a temporary guardian and later granted APS’s petition for full guardianship without a new finding of incapacity, relying on the 2012 determination. The granddaughter requested a jury trial on the issue of her capacity, but the court denied this request, applying the doctrine of issue preclusion, which prevents relitigation of issues already decided.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and found that the Superior Court erred in applying issue preclusion to the granddaughter’s capacity. The court noted that capacity can change over time and that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the facts regarding the granddaughter’s capacity were the same in 2012 and 2022. The court emphasized that APS, as the petitioner, had the burden of proving the granddaughter’s current incapacity. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s order appointing a permanent guardian and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the granddaughter’s capacity. View "In re Protective Proceeding of S.J." on Justia Law

Lizette Aguilar petitioned for a domestic abuse protection order against Ana Valdez-Mendoza, her daughter's stepmother, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-924. Aguilar alleged that Valdez-Mendoza physically assaulted her during a visit to drop off her daughter at the home of her ex-husband, Fernando Mendoza, who is married to Valdez-Mendoza. The district court issued an ex parte protection order, which was affirmed after a hearing. Valdez-Mendoza appealed, arguing that the court erred in concluding that she and Aguilar were related by "affinity" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-903.The district court for Madison County found that Aguilar and Valdez-Mendoza had a relationship by "affinity" because Aguilar is related to her daughter, and the daughter's father is married to Valdez-Mendoza. The court overruled Valdez-Mendoza's motion to dismiss and affirmed the protection order, reasoning that the statutory phrase "related by affinity" was broad enough to include their relationship.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in its interpretation of "affinity." The court defined "affinity" as the relationship arising from the marriage contract between one spouse and the blood relations of the other, not extending to Aguilar herself, who is not related by consanguinity to Mendoza. Therefore, Aguilar and Valdez-Mendoza were not related by affinity under § 42-903. The court reversed the district court's decision and vacated the protection order. View "Aguilar v. Valdez-Mendoza" on Justia Law

Leanne Nester and Cody Gamble divorced in 2022, with custody arrangements for their two minor children outlined in the divorce decree. Gamble later moved to modify custody, and during the proceedings, a press organization requested media access, which the district court granted. Nester moved for reconsideration, seeking to close the hearing to protect sensitive information about the children, including medical and Child Protective Services records. The district court denied her motion, interpreting a previous case, Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court, as precluding closure of family law proceedings.The district court concluded it lacked discretion to close the hearing, stating there was no statute or rule allowing it. Nester then sought writ relief from the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing that the district court misinterpreted Falconi and failed to consider her privacy interests and those of her children.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its interpretation of Falconi. The court clarified that Falconi does not prohibit the closure of family law proceedings but requires a case-by-case analysis to determine if closure is warranted. The court outlined that closure is permissible if it serves a compelling interest, there is a substantial probability that the interest could be harmed without closure, and no alternatives to closure would adequately protect the interest.The Supreme Court of Nevada granted Nester's petition, directing the district court to vacate its order denying the motion to close the hearing and to reconsider the motion using the test outlined in Falconi. The court emphasized the need for the district court to properly apply the factors to determine whether closure is justified. View "NESTER VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law