Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

In December 2019, Zackey Rahimi, the respondent, had a violent altercation with his girlfriend, C. M., who is also the mother of his child. Rahimi grabbed C. M., dragged her back to his car, and shoved her in, causing her to hit her head. When a bystander witnessed the incident, Rahimi retrieved a gun from his car. C. M. managed to escape, and Rahimi fired his gun, though it is unclear whether he was aiming at C. M. or the witness. Following this incident, C. M. sought a restraining order against Rahimi, which was granted by a state court in Texas. The order included a finding that Rahimi had committed “family violence” and posed “a credible threat” to the “physical safety” of C. M. or their child. The order also suspended Rahimi’s gun license for two years. Despite the order, Rahimi violated it by approaching C. M.’s home and contacting her through social media. He was later charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for threatening another woman with a gun.Rahimi was indicted for possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that Section 922(g)(8) violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The District Court denied his motion, and Rahimi pleaded guilty. On appeal, he again raised his Second Amendment challenge, which was denied. Rahimi petitioned for rehearing en banc.The Supreme Court of the United States held that when a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect. The Court found that since the founding, the nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Rahimi" on Justia Law

In this case, Asia R. Mann, now known as Asia R. Harrison, and Brian L. Mann were disputing modifications to their stipulated dissolution decree. The main issues in the case revolved around child custody, visitation, child support, and attorney fees.Prior to this case, the couple had been granted joint legal and physical custody of their two children. However, after Brian was convicted of stalking Asia, she sought sole legal and physical custody of the children. She argued that Brian's conviction constituted domestic intimate partner abuse under the Parenting Act, and as such, the court should take specific actions to protect her and the children.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that Brian's conviction for stalking did not constitute domestic intimate partner abuse under the Parenting Act, as the act requires that bodily injury be attempted, caused, or credibly threatened. The court found no evidence of this in Brian's conduct. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Asia's request for sole custody of the children.The court also found no error in the lower court's decisions regarding child support, health insurance, and attorney fees. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to allow Brian to choose between two school districts for the children's enrollment.Finally, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate the portion of the dissolution decree that found Brian stood in loco parentis to Asia's child from a previous relationship, Maleah. The court found that the lower court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to modify the California child custody judgment as to Maleah. View "Mann v. Mann" on Justia Law

The case involves Katherine Cassell (Kathy) and William Cassell (Bill), who were married in 1991 and separated in 2021. Prior to their marriage, Bill and his siblings inherited land in Mississippi from their mother and formed Waterloo Farms, Inc. (Waterloo), which held title to the inherited land. Waterloo also owned two tracts of land in Claiborne County. During their marriage, Bill began farming as Valley of the Moon Farms, LLC (VOM), which was owned 50% by Bill and 50% by Moon Planting Company, Inc. (MPC). MPC was formed by Bill’s father, who transferred 99% of MPC’s ownership to Kathy and 1% to Bill. Kathy and Bill maintained two bank accounts—one personal joint account and one account for VOM. Revenue from VOM was deposited into the VOM account and from there, money would be transferred into Kathy and Bill’s joint personal account for monthly expenses.The couple separated in 2021, and Kathy filed for divorce on the grounds of uncondoned adultery and, alternatively, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and irreconcilable differences. Kathy sought an equitable division of the marital estate, permanent periodic alimony, lump sum alimony and for Bill to maintain her medical and dental insurance and his own life insurance for which she was the sole beneficiary. Kathy also requested reasonable attorneys’ fees. The chancery court entered a final judgment of divorce and his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The chancellor granted the divorce on the ground of uncondoned adultery. Among other assets, the chancellor classified Tract Two and the Turley Property as Bill’s separate property, and classified the Thompson Property and the VOM account as marital property. In total, Bill’s separate property was valued at $5,341,640.14. After classifying and equitably dividing the various marital assets applying the Ferguson factors, the chancellor considered Kathy’s alimony request weighing the Armstrong factors and awarded her permanent periodic alimony in the amount of $7,500 per month. In total, Kathy was awarded permanent periodic alimony and 40 percent of the marital estate, and the court ordered Bill to maintain life insurance for which Kathy was the sole beneficiary in the amount of $500,000 and to maintain Kathy’s health insurance until she turned sixty-five or was able to obtain Medicare. Kathy’s portion of the marital estate amounted to a lump sum payment of $667,557, whereas Bill’s portion of the marital estate was valued by the chancellor at $1,861,629.53. From this final judgment and findings of fact and conclusions of law, Kathy appeals.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancery court's decision. The court held that the burden of proof to rebut the presumption of marital property is by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the party claiming property excluded from marital property has been commingled and transformed into marital property bears the burden of proof, likewise by a preponderance of the evidence. Finally, the court overruled Cheatham insofar as it has any bearing on a chancellor’s decision to award alimony and reaffirmed the factors enumerated in Ferguson—awarding alimony during the division of the estate—and Armstrong—awarding alimony subsequent to the division of the estate—as the appropriate factors to be considered. View "Cassell v. Cassell" on Justia Law

The case involves Tristan Tanner, an employee of Stryker Corporation of Michigan, who appealed against the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Stryker. Tanner had filed claims for interference with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and for retaliation for his exercise of those rights. Tanner had requested paternity leave for the birth of his child and had taken time off work before the birth of his child, during which he accrued "occurrence points" under Stryker's attendance policy. He was terminated after accruing more than the allowed number of points.The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of Stryker, finding that Tanner was not entitled to FMLA leave for his absences before his child's birth. The court also found that Stryker had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Tanner, namely his accrual of eight occurrence points due to repeated unexcused absences.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the days Tanner spent in Connecticut waiting for his child to be born were not covered under FMLA. The court also found that Tanner had not provided evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Stryker's reason for his termination was pretextual. Therefore, the court concluded that summary judgment in Stryker's favor was appropriate for both Tanner's FMLA retaliation and interference claims. View "Tanner v. Stryker Corporation of Michigan" on Justia Law

The case involves Wesley Castle's petition to adopt his stepchildren, I.V.E., C.A.E., and L.A.E. The children's biological father and ex-husband of Wesley's wife, Isaac Ellsaesser, objected to the petition, arguing that he does not consent to the adoption and that his consent cannot be waived under SDCL 25-6-4. The children's mother, Frances, had previously divorced Isaac due to a toxic and abusive relationship. Isaac had struggled with alcohol addiction and had faced domestic abuse charges. After the divorce, Isaac completed treatment for his addiction and attempted to reestablish a relationship with his children.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Lawrence County, South Dakota, held an evidentiary hearing on whether Isaac’s consent could be waived. The court determined that Wesley did not prove any of the statutory grounds for waiver by clear and convincing evidence. The court entered an order denying Wesley’s petition, and Wesley appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Wesley failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Isaac had substantially and continuously neglected his children or willfully neglected to pay child support. The court noted that Isaac had made several concerted efforts to reestablish a parental relationship with his children and had begun making child support payments after determining the amount he owed in arrears and how to pay. The court concluded that Isaac's failure to pay child support could not be considered willful under the circumstances. View "In the Matter of the Adoption of I.V.E." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over primary residential responsibility for two minor children between Casey Kubal and Kari Anderson. The couple lived together in North Dakota, but Anderson moved to South Dakota with the children in March 2022. In April 2022, Anderson initiated litigation in South Dakota to establish primary residential responsibility. In August 2023, Kubal served Anderson with a summons and complaint in North Dakota, which were filed with the district court in October 2023. Anderson moved to dismiss the case, arguing that North Dakota was an inconvenient forum as she had already commenced litigation in South Dakota and the children continued to reside there.The District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, dismissed the case, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because North Dakota was not the children's home state when Kubal commenced the case. The court also ruled that even if it had jurisdiction, North Dakota would be an inconvenient forum. The court made its decision based on the pleadings and motion papers, noting that the parties failed to provide information regarding the South Dakota proceeding.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case. The Supreme Court found that the record was inadequate to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists under the UCCJEA. The court noted that the district court did not address the three other grounds for jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and that the nature of the rulings in South Dakota and the status of those proceedings were necessary to determine whether the district court has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that granting Anderson's motion to dismiss without understanding what has occurred in the South Dakota proceeding was contrary to the purpose of the UCCJEA. View "Kubal v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The case involves Mariya Stephens and Kevin Lee, who were married in 2017 and have a child together. After their divorce in 2020, Stephens was granted primary residential responsibility of their child, with Lee receiving parenting time. The divorce judgment stated that if Stephens had a permanent change of duty station, the child would relocate with her. In 2021, Stephens married Charles Stephens and they had two children together. In 2022, the Stephens family contracted to build a home in Virginia and informed Lee of their plans to relocate. Stephens believed she had Lee's consent to relocate either under the divorce judgment or his text messages and emails. In April 2023, Stephens filed a motion for relocation and relocated before the district court could act on the motion.Lee objected to Stephens's relocation and requested the district court to deny her motion to relocate to Virginia. He also moved to amend the divorce judgment to give him primary residential responsibility for their child and filed a motion for contempt due to Stephens's alleged violations of the judgment. In May 2023, the district court required the Stephens family to return to North Dakota with their child. In October 2023, the district court denied Stephens's motion to relocate, awarded Lee primary residential responsibility, and granted his motion to amend the judgment.In the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Stephens argued that the district court erred in denying her motion to relocate. She claimed that she did not need Lee's consent due to language in the divorce judgment and, alternatively, that Lee consented to the relocation through text messages and emails. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the divorce judgment did not provide Stephens with Lee's consent for her to move their child out of state, and did not err by denying her motion and by granting Lee's motion to change primary residential responsibility. View "Stephens v. Lee" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over jurisdiction in a divorce proceeding between Maria Del Carmen Rendon Quijada and Julian Javier Pimienta Dominguez. The couple, originally from Mexico, moved to the U.S. in 2007. Pimienta held a TN visa, allowing him to work temporarily in the U.S., while Rendon held a TD visa, reserved for spouses and minor children of TN visa holders. Rendon's TD visa expired in March 2020, and she began seeking lawful permanent resident status in December 2020. In May 2022, Rendon filed for divorce in Arizona. Pimienta argued that Rendon could not establish domicile in Arizona due to her expired TD visa, which precludes her from intending to remain in the state indefinitely. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.The court of appeals reversed the decision, holding that Rendon's TD visa did not prevent her from establishing a U.S. domicile, as she had begun seeking lawful permanent resident status. The court concluded that federal immigration law did not preempt Arizona jurisdiction over the dissolution proceeding.The Supreme Court of Arizona disagreed with the lower courts' focus on federal immigration law. It held that the question was not whether federal immigration law divested Arizona courts of jurisdiction over a divorce sought by an expired TD visa holder, but whether the visa holder could meet the domicile requirements under Arizona law. The court concluded that federal immigration law did not prevent Rendon from establishing domicile in Arizona, and thus, the state courts had jurisdiction over the divorce proceeding. The court vacated the court of appeals' opinion, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF QUIJADA/DOMINGUEZ" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between ex-spouses Amanda Wynell Conners and Andrew Brian Conners over child support payments. The mother filed a motion for contempt of court, alleging that the father had not made the required payments. The district court issued a citation to show cause, and after unsuccessful attempts to personally serve the father, the mother requested permission to serve the contempt materials via email.The district court allowed the email service, which the father contested, arguing that it was inconsistent with the Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 107, which governs contempt proceedings in civil cases. The father then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, challenging the district court's decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado held that the Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 107, as amended in 1995, does not permit a party to serve process for indirect contempt by email. The court further held that substituted service under Rule 4(f) is not permitted in contempt proceedings. The court made the rule to show cause absolute and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court clarified that Rule 107 governs all contempt proceedings, whether punitive or remedial, that arise out of an underlying case that is civil in nature. The court also held that email service does not satisfy Rule 107(c)’s requirements for physical service directly on the specific individual accused of contempt without any intermediate intervention. View "In Re the Marriage of Conners" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the eligibility of a married individual, Costa Tingos, for Medicaid long-term care benefits. Costa and his wife, Mary, had been married for over 50 years, but had kept their finances largely separate due to Costa's history of gambling and financial mismanagement. When Costa moved into a nursing home, he applied for Medicaid benefits. However, Mary refused to provide information about her income and assets, which was necessary to determine Costa's eligibility. Costa argued that Mary's refusal to cooperate should not affect his eligibility.The case was initially heard by the Massachusetts Medicaid program, MassHealth, which denied Costa's application. Costa appealed to the MassHealth board of hearings, which also denied his appeal. Costa then sought judicial review in the Superior Court, which vacated the board's decision and remanded the case back to the board. After two more rounds of hearings and appeals, the Superior Court affirmed the board's decision to deny Costa's application.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. The court held that the board's interpretation of the phrase "refuses to cooperate" in the relevant regulation was reasonable. The court found that Mary's refusal to disclose her financial information did not constitute a refusal to cooperate within the meaning of the regulation, given the couple's long history of cooperation in other aspects of their marriage. The court also rejected Costa's argument that the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. View "Freiner v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law