Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The State of Wyoming filed a petition against MF (Mother) and JF (Father) on June 22, 2020, alleging neglect of their minor children, JF and TF. Following a shelter care hearing, the juvenile court removed the children from the home and placed them in foster care. After a disposition hearing, the children remained in the custody of the Department of Family Services (the Department), with a permanency plan of family reunification. On January 19, 2024, after an evidentiary permanency hearing, the juvenile court changed the permanency plan to adoption.The juvenile court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The court noted that Mother had made some progress but ultimately failed to consistently address the children's needs and safety concerns. The court also found that the children's best interests were served by changing the permanency plan to adoption, given their progress in foster care and the lack of stability and safety in Mother's care.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption, as the Department had made reasonable efforts at reunification, which were unsuccessful. The court also found that the juvenile court's decision to cease reunification efforts with Mother was supported by Wyoming law, which allows for discontinuation of such efforts when they are inconsistent with the permanency plan.Additionally, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that Mother's due process rights were not violated by the denial of a continuance of the permanency hearing or by the juvenile court's evidentiary rulings. The court found that Mother had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and the juvenile court's decisions were within the bounds of reason. The court also declined to adopt Mother's request for a change in procedures to require compliance with the Wyoming Rules of Evidence in evidentiary permanency hearings. View "In the Interest of: JF v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Taylor M. appealed a judgment from the District Court terminating her parental rights to her child, arguing that her due process rights were violated and that the court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The child, born prematurely with various medical conditions, required extensive care. Taylor M., a registered member of the Mi’kmaq Nation, was largely absent during the child’s initial hospitalization. The Department of Health and Human Services filed for a child protection order, which was granted, and the child was placed with resource parents.The District Court held a jeopardy hearing in January 2023, finding clear and convincing evidence of jeopardy due to Taylor M.’s inability to care for the child. The court scheduled several hearings, but delays occurred, and the child’s resource parents moved out of state with the Department and tribe’s agreement. In October 2023, the Department filed a petition to terminate Taylor M.’s parental rights. At the consolidated hearing in January 2024, the court heard testimony from various parties, including the ICWA director for the Mi’kmaq Nation.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court complied with ICWA requirements. The court determined that the Department made active efforts to reunify the family and that Taylor M. did not take significant steps to address the jeopardy. The court also found beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody by Taylor M. would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. The court affirmed the termination of Taylor M.’s parental rights, concluding that the child’s placement with the resource parents was appropriate and in the child’s best interest. View "In re Child of Taylor M." on Justia Law

Bonnie Campbell, a federal employee, and Michael Campbell, her ex-husband, entered into a divorce property settlement agreement in which Mr. Campbell waived his rights to Ms. Campbell's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account. Despite this agreement, Ms. Campbell did not remove Mr. Campbell as the beneficiary of her TSP account before her death. After her death, Mr. Campbell received the balance of the TSP account. The estate of Ms. Campbell (the Estate) sued Mr. Campbell for breach of contract to enforce the terms of the divorce settlement agreement.The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted summary judgment in favor of the Estate on its breach of contract claim, awarding money damages. The court rejected Mr. Campbell's argument that the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA) preempted the Estate's claim. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding that FERSA preempted the Estate's breach of contract claim.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that FERSA does not preempt the Estate’s post-distribution breach of contract action. The court found that FERSA’s purposes, which include establishing a federal employee retirement plan and ensuring it is fully funded and financially sound, do not concern plan beneficiaries. The court also noted that FERSA’s provisions elevate the requirements of a qualifying state property settlement agreement over a deceased participant’s designated beneficiary, provided notice is given before payment. The court concluded that a post-distribution suit to enforce contractual obligations in a divorce property settlement agreement does not hinder any governmental interest in administrative convenience or avoiding double payment. The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed, and the Circuit Court's judgment was affirmed. View "In re Isely" on Justia Law

Jared and Brandi Boehm filed a petition to adopt Jared's three minor children without the consent of their biological mother, Brittney Ramirez, alleging she had failed to pay child support for twelve of the fourteen months preceding the petition. The trial court approved the adoption without Ramirez's consent, finding she had not complied with the child support order. Ramirez appealed the decision after the final Decree of Adoption was filed.The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, excluding federal stimulus payments received by the father from consideration in evaluating Ramirez's compliance with the child support order. Ramirez then sought certiorari, arguing that the stimulus payments should have been considered.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and found that the trial court's refusal to consider the economic stimulus payments, which were received by the father and credited to Ramirez's child support debt, was an abuse of discretion. The court determined that the evidence did not support a finding that Ramirez had willfully failed to pay child support in substantial compliance with the court order for twelve consecutive months. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, reversed the trial court's ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF N.J.B." on Justia Law

Michael Jones purchased Series EE federal savings bonds during his marriage to Jeanine Jones, designating her as the pay-on-death beneficiary. Upon their divorce, their divorce settlement agreement (DSA) did not specifically address the savings bonds but included a provision that any marital asset not listed would belong to the party currently in possession. The DSA also required Michael to pay Jeanine $200,000 in installments. After Michael's death, Jeanine redeemed the savings bonds and filed a creditor’s claim against Michael’s Estate for the remaining $100,000 owed under the DSA. The Estate argued that the redemption of the savings bonds satisfied Michael’s financial obligations to Jeanine.The trial court agreed with the Estate, ruling that the savings bonds counted towards Michael’s $200,000 obligation under the DSA and dismissed Jeanine’s claim for reimbursement. Jeanine appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the federal regulations governing U.S. savings bonds preempted state law, and Jeanine was the sole owner of the bonds at Michael’s death. Therefore, the value of the redeemed bonds should not be credited towards the Estate’s obligations under the DSA.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that preemption was not an issue because N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14 does not conflict with federal regulations governing U.S. savings bonds. The Court found that the DSA did not direct the disposition of the savings bonds, and thus, the bonds should not be credited against Michael’s $200,000 obligation. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment as modified, ruling that the Estate must make the remaining payments to Jeanine as required by the DSA. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves D.H.E., the biological father of V.S., a minor. The Cook County circuit court found V.S. neglected due to an injurious environment and dependent due to his mother's disability. Consequently, V.S. was adjudged a ward of the court, and guardianship was granted to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). D.H.E. appealed, arguing that the neglect finding violated his due process rights, was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the court failed to provide a factual basis for its disposition.The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's adjudication and disposition orders. It found that D.H.E.'s challenges related to the neglect finding were moot because he did not also challenge the dependency finding. The appellate court also upheld the disposition order, which granted guardianship and custody to DCFS based on the finding that D.H.E. was unable to care for V.S.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's judgment. The court held that D.H.E.'s appeal was moot because he failed to challenge the dependency finding, which alone was sufficient to support the wardship and disposition orders. The court also found that the collateral consequences exception to mootness did not apply, as no significant collateral consequences specifically tied to the neglect finding were identified. Therefore, the court did not address the remaining issues on appeal. View "In re V.S." on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, X.G.C., appealed the termination of his parental rights over his child, V.I.C. The child was born in December 2019 and suffered multiple injuries while in the care of her parents, including a subdural hematoma and a fractured arm. The Jackson County Department of Child Protection Services (JCCPS) took custody of the child after determining that the injuries were consistent with abuse. Despite efforts to reunify the family, including a service plan and a ninety-day trial placement, the child sustained further injuries, leading to the termination of the father's parental rights.The Jackson County Youth Court initially placed the child in JCCPS custody and ordered efforts towards reunification. However, after the child sustained additional injuries during the trial placement with her father, the court changed the permanency plan to termination of parental rights. The court conducted multiple hearings and found that JCCPS had made reasonable efforts to assist the father in complying with the service plan, but he had failed to provide a safe environment for the child.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the youth court's decision. The court found that the statutory requirements for termination under Mississippi Code Section 93-15-115 were met, including the adjudication of the child as abused, the child's placement in JCCPS custody for over six months, and the father's failure to comply with the service plan. The court also determined that termination was appropriate under Section 93-15-119, as the father's conduct demonstrated a substantial risk to the child's safety and welfare. The court concluded that the youth court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. View "X.G.C. v. Jackson County Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law

A father appealed a Family Court order terminating his parental rights. The Department of Services for Children, Youth and their Families (DFS) took custody of the father's son shortly after birth due to the father's mental health issues, substance abuse, unstable housing, employment status, previous involvement with DFS, history of domestic violence, and failure to plan for the child. DFS moved to be excused from case planning with the father under 13 Del. C. § 1103(d), arguing that grounds for termination existed under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(7) because the father's parental rights to another child had been involuntarily terminated in an earlier proceeding. The Family Court granted the motion and later terminated the father's parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interests of the child.The father argued on appeal that Section 1103(d) is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and concluded that Section 1103(d) is not unconstitutional as applied to the father. The court found that the Family Court's analysis under Sections 1103(a)(7) and 1103(d) was supported by the record and that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The court also rejected the father's argument that the "least restrictive means" standard should be applied, instead following the due process framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge.The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Family Court's judgment, holding that the statutory grounds for termination were met and that the termination was in the best interests of the child. The court found that the father received sufficient process before the termination of his parental rights and that the Family Court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "Schnell v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and their Families" on Justia Law

Wesley Brinda (Father) petitioned for a custody modification to change the current arrangement from primary residential custody with Stacey Walker (Mother) to shared residential custody. Mother counterpetitioned to modify child support. After a two-day bench trial, the district court found no material change in circumstances to justify reopening the current custodial order but modified the child support order. Father appealed the district court’s custody decision.The District Court of Campbell County initially awarded joint legal custody with Mother having primary residential custody of the children, AB and KB, based on Father’s rotating work schedule at a coal mine. After being laid off in 2016, Father became self-employed, allowing him more flexibility. In 2017, Father successfully petitioned to modify child support but did not request a custody modification. In 2021, Father filed a petition to modify custody, citing his flexible work schedule and the children’s desire to spend more time with him. Mother denied sufficient grounds for modifying custody but sought a review of child support.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining no material change in circumstances had occurred. The court found that while the children expressed a desire to spend more time with Father, the district court reasonably concluded that these preferences, along with Father’s career change, did not justify reopening the custody order. The court also found that the parties generally co-parented well and that the district court properly considered all evidence presented. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding it reasonable and supported by the evidence. View "Brinda v. Walker" on Justia Law

A District Court in Caribou, Maine, issued a judgment in February 2024 regarding the parental rights and responsibilities of a child born to Andrew M. Landeen and Ashley Burch, who were former romantic partners but never married. The court granted primary physical residence to Burch and visitation rights to Landeen. Additionally, the court changed the child's last name to "Landeen" without providing specific findings or comments on the decision. Burch appealed the name change, and Landeen cross-appealed the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.The District Court's judgment was based on the best interest of the child, considering factors such as the parents' ability to cooperate and the child's emotional and physical safety. The court found that Landeen's persistent anger towards Burch and his inability to manage frustration appropriately were detrimental to the child's best interest. Consequently, the court allocated primary parental rights to Burch while allowing Landeen visitation rights and the right to be informed of major decisions concerning the child.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and found that the District Court's allocation of parental rights and responsibilities was supported by the record and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment changing the child's last name. The court held that the father’s desire to change the child's surname, based solely on tradition and without supporting evidence, did not meet the statutory requirement of showing "good cause" or that the change was in the child's best interest. The court emphasized that both parents have equal rights in naming their child and that any name change must be justified by the child's best interest. View "Landeen v. Burch" on Justia Law