Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose concerning the residential responsibility and decision-making authority for a young child, M.R.M.-B., born to two unmarried parents, Monkman and Binney. After an incident in which Monkman withheld the child from Binney and the child was found with bruising and signs of neglect, Cass County Human Service Zone removed the child from both parents and placed her with the Hackmanns, who served as foster parents for approximately two years. Following the juvenile court’s decision to return the child to her parents, the Hackmanns sought to intervene and obtain residential responsibility, asserting they were psychological parents. Meanwhile, Binney and Monkman filed competing motions regarding residential responsibility and support.The District Court of Cass County first denied, then later granted, the Hackmanns’ motion to intervene, determining that the Uniform Nonparent Custody and Visitation Act (N.D.C.C. ch. 14-09.4) was not the exclusive means for nonparents to seek custody, and that an equitable claim as psychological parents was cognizable. After hearings, the district court awarded the Hackmanns primary residential responsibility and sole decision-making authority for the child, subject to Monkman’s supervised parenting time and Binney’s unsupervised time. Monkman appealed, challenging the award to the Hackmanns, the restriction on his parenting time, and the calculation of child support.The Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded that, under N.D.C.C. § 14-09.4-02(3), a nonparent whose relationship with a child is based solely on foster parent status may not be found to be a psychological parent. It found the Hackmanns’ relationship with M.R.M.-B. was solely as foster parents and that the district court’s finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court reversed the amended judgment, denied the Hackmanns’ request for attorney’s fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Interest of M.R.M." on Justia Law

Four children were removed from their parents’ custody after reports of exposure to domestic violence and methamphetamine use. Both parents tested positive for methamphetamine, and the father had a recent suicide attempt and a history of violent incidents, including an incident where he was charged with strangulation. The children had previously tested positive for methamphetamine and had been removed from the home in a prior proceeding but were later returned after the parents complied with treatment plans. Following the 2023 removal, the father was offered a court-approved treatment plan with requirements such as chemical dependency treatment, drug testing, mental health counseling, and stable housing and income. The father failed to meaningfully engage with the treatment plan for nearly a year, continued to use methamphetamine, and was inconsistent with drug testing and other requirements. Despite eventual partial compliance, concerns remained regarding his substance use, lack of protective capacity, and minimal progress addressing mental health issues.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court in Yellowstone County adjudicated the children as youths in need of care and approved the Department’s petitions for removal and temporary custody. The father stipulated to the treatment plan, but failed to comply with its requirements. The Department petitioned for termination of parental rights based on chronic abuse/neglect and failure to complete the treatment plan. Following a multi-day hearing, the District Court found the father’s unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time, given his delayed engagement, ongoing substance use, and inability to protect the children from their mother’s influence.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Court held that the father waived his right to challenge the appropriateness of the treatment plan by failing to object to it when it was created. The Court found that substantial evidence supported termination under § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, and the District Court was not required to consider guardianship before termination. View "Matter of A.J.C." on Justia Law

A father and mother, married in 2009, have a child, R.A.A., who was born in 2015. The family lived in Colorado before moving to Montana around 2020. The father frequently travels for work, while the child was homeschooled in Montana. In June 2022, R.A.A. began living in the Netherlands with the mother and attended public school there. After a brief attempt to reconcile in the United States, the mother and child returned to the Netherlands without the father’s consent. The mother initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the Netherlands in February 2024. The father later filed a petition in the Netherlands for the child’s return under the Hague Convention, but both the District Court and the Court of Appeal of The Hague denied his petition, finding that although the child’s removal was wrongful, she had become settled in the Netherlands.The father then filed an emergency motion for temporary custody and a petition for a permanent parenting plan in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, Montana, in September 2025. The Montana District Court dismissed both filings, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because Montana was not R.A.A.’s “home state” under Montana law, as she had not lived there for more than two years, and that it must recognize and enforce the custody determination from the Netherlands. The father appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decision. It held that Montana courts do not have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination when the state is not the child’s “home state” as defined by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and that Montana courts must recognize and enforce valid foreign judgments in such matters. The order of dismissal without prejudice was deemed a final, appealable order. View "IN RE THE PARENTING OF R.A.A." on Justia Law

Following the parents’ divorce in 2012, ongoing custody disputes ensued over their two daughters. A 2019 order granted primary custody to the mother, with visitation for the father. In late 2024, the father filed for custody modification after the older daughter, then fifteen, reported that her mother had expelled her from the home. The father retrieved the daughter, took her to Colorado, and notified local police. Attempts at visitation and school enrollment led to further police involvement and contentious exchanges, including a physical altercation between the mother and daughter and additional conflicts involving the mother’s adult son. Throughout these events, the father sought temporary and then permanent changes to the custody order.The District Court of Laramie County initially addressed temporary custody motions and later held a hearing on the father’s petition for modification. The court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), who recommended counseling and ultimately a change in custody. At trial, both daughters expressed a preference for living with their mother. The GAL, however, recommended primary custody be transferred to the father. After weighing testimony and the GAL’s report, the district court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred, citing the breakdown of the mother’s relationship with the older daughter and ongoing instability. The court modified the order, awarding primary custody of both daughters to the father, with visitation for the mother.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a material change in circumstances or in concluding that awarding primary custody to the father was in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Court also granted the father costs, as permitted by rule, but not attorney’s fees, since he appeared pro se. View "Duncan v. Duncan" on Justia Law

A mother and father, previously divorced, shared joint custody of their minor son. While visiting his father’s home, the child wandered into a neighbor’s property, accessed a swimming pool, and drowned. Following the child’s death, the mother—on behalf of her son—filed a wrongful death suit against both the father and the neighbor. The father cross-claimed against the neighbor for wrongful death as well. The neighbor settled with both parents, and the settlement funds were interpleaded with the Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division, which then dismissed all claims against the neighbor.After the neighbor’s dismissal, the mother received half of the settlement funds. The father’s portion was held by the court pending resolution of a related criminal case, in which the father later pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide. The mother then requested that the court award her the remainder of the funds, arguing that Alabama law and public policy prohibited the father from benefitting financially from his son’s death. The father argued that because his conviction did not involve a felonious and intentional killing, he was not barred from recovery. The trial court agreed with the father and ordered the remaining funds to be disbursed to him, while reserving all other issues for trial or further hearing.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the order appealed from was not a final judgment. The trial court had expressly reserved remaining claims—specifically, the wrongful death claim against the father—so not all issues between all parties had been conclusively resolved. The Supreme Court of Alabama therefore dismissed the appeal. View "B.S.H. v. Humphryes" on Justia Law

John M. Carter and Ann C. Martin were married in 2015. Carter initiated divorce proceedings in March 2023. On June 6, 2025, a hearing was held in the Maine District Court, at which both parties testified remotely. The court orally announced that the divorce would be final as of that day if both parties filed waivers of appeal. Carter filed his waiver that same day, but Martin did not. The court determined that additional real estate orders were needed before finalizing the judgment. Before the court signed the final written judgment and the real estate orders on July 3, 2025, Carter died on June 27, 2025.Following Carter’s death, Martin filed a motion for relief from or to alter the judgment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter a final divorce judgment after Carter’s death. The District Court denied her motion, citing Boland v. Belair, and reasoned that the settlement the parties had reached should be binding. Martin then appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case de novo and held that because Carter died before the court signed the final judgment, the marriage was automatically terminated by death. Therefore, the District Court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction to enter a divorce judgment, as there was no longer a marriage to dissolve. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the judgment signed after Carter’s death was void and that the use of nunc pro tunc was not valid to retroactively finalize the divorce. The court vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the divorce action. View "Estate of Carter v. Martin" on Justia Law

A married couple acquired real estate in Bucksport, Maine, during their marriage and operated a short-term rental business on the property through a jointly owned limited liability company (LLC). They also owned a 2009 SeaRey airplane, acquired during their marriage. After the wife obtained a protection from abuse order against the husband in June 2022, she operated and maintained the business and prepared the real estate for sale without his involvement. The parties reached a partial settlement on some divorce issues, but disputed the division of the Bucksport property, the status and value of the airplane, and the dissolution of the LLC.The District Court in Bangor entered a divorce judgment incorporating the parties’ partial agreement. The court awarded the wife 60% of the value of the Bucksport real estate, attributing the increase in value to her post-separation efforts. It determined the airplane was marital property used primarily for personal purposes, valued it at $37,500, and awarded it to the husband, requiring him to compensate the wife for her share or to sell and divide the proceeds. The court also ordered the dissolution of the LLC and distribution of any profits. The husband appealed, challenging the division of real estate, the airplane’s use and valuation, and the dissolution of the LLC.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the District Court’s finding that the airplane was marital property and not a business asset, but vacated the valuation of the airplane, finding insufficient evidence to support the assigned value. The Court also held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order dissolution of the LLC as part of the divorce. The judgment was vacated as to the distribution of the Bucksport real estate, the airplane’s valuation, and the LLC dissolution, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. The divorce judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "Adams v. Delong" on Justia Law

A married couple residing primarily in Jackson, Wyoming, with three children, went through divorce proceedings after a tumultuous relationship marked by substance abuse and domestic conflict. The husband, a founder and majority owner of a successful IT consulting business, and the wife, who gave up her career to raise their children, disputed issues of custody, visitation, child support, and property division. During the divorce, the wife sought and later dismissed a protective order, and the parties agreed to a temporary custody arrangement. The husband subsequently filed for divorce, and the wife secured a job in New York, intending to relocate with the children.The District Court of Teton County, following a bench trial, awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the wife, allowing her to relocate. The court set detailed visitation terms for the husband and calculated child support by imputing a high income to him, based partly on prior business distributions. The court valued the marital estate, including the husband’s business, and awarded the wife 55% of the assets, justifying this as equitable due to her career sacrifices. The husband’s requests for a stay of proceedings and for enforcement of visitation were denied; the court also clarified that visitation periods could not be combined.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly valuing the husband’s business interest and by including unlikely future business distributions in imputing his income for child support. The court reversed both the property division and the child support calculation, remanding for further proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed the custody and visitation orders, finding them within the district court’s discretion and supported by the evidence. The order clarifying visitation while the appeal was pending was vacated due to lack of jurisdiction. The denial of a stay was affirmed. View "Callaway v. Callaway" on Justia Law

A married couple with a long-term marriage divorced, leading to the division of a substantial marital estate valued at approximately $8.2 million. The parties reached partial agreements on some assets: one spouse received a distribution from their residential rental business, while the other retained their landscaping business and the marital home. Both parties divided several vehicles, including a truck purchased by one spouse after separation. Disputes remained about the value of certain assets and liabilities, including whether the landscaping company’s obligation to reclaim mined land was a marital debt, how to value the post-separation truck, the assignment of value to personal items taken from a shed, and the terms of liens securing an equalization payment.The Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, conducted a property trial, dividing the estate and resolving the disputed issues. The court found that the reclamation obligation was not a marital debt because its cost was speculative and not presently owed. The court valued the truck at its fair market value, not the purchase price, as evidence showed depreciation and market inflation. It assigned value to personal items only when evidence supported such valuations. An equalization payment was ordered, to be paid in installments, with only later payments accruing interest. Motions for reconsideration and to modify the liens were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the Superior Court’s decisions regarding the reclamation costs, the truck’s valuation, the handling of personal items, and the lien structure. However, the Supreme Court vacated the portion of the order concerning the lack of interest on the first two equalization payment installments. The Supreme Court held that when interest on a deferred equalization payment is withheld, the trial court must explain its reasoning. The case was remanded for a sufficient explanation regarding interest. View "Marquez v. Marquez" on Justia Law

A married couple separated after more than twenty years together. The wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, initially leaving the sections regarding property division unspecified. The husband was personally served with the petition but did not respond or participate in the proceedings for an extended period. The wife later retained counsel, took the husband’s default, and submitted additional disclosure forms. A default judgment was entered awarding the marital residence and other assets to the wife, subject to certain equalizing payments to the husband. Notice issues arose because the husband was not properly informed of hearing dates or the specific property division sought, and some communications between the wife's counsel and the court were conducted informally and off-the-record.After the default judgment was entered, the wife sought to enforce it, prompting the husband to appear at a subsequent hearing. He later retained counsel and moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing that he did not receive proper notice, the judgment exceeded the relief requested in the original petition, and the disclosures were inadequate or not properly served. The Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, considered extensive briefing and hearings. The court found that the husband was not provided proper notice of the proceedings and that the default judgment exceeded the relief requested in the petition, as the property for division had been left “to be determined” in the petition and not specified before judgment.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the lower court’s order setting aside the default judgment except as to marital status. The court held that a default judgment in a dissolution action cannot grant relief exceeding what was specified in the petition, per Code of Civil Procedure section 580, and that lack of notice to the defaulting party also warranted vacatur under the Family Code. The court directed that the wife amend her petition to list assets for division, allowed the husband to answer, and permitted the case to proceed accordingly. View "In re Marriage of Jenkins" on Justia Law