Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between Kevin Rawlings (Father) and Michelle Rawlings (Mother) who separated in 2015. The main point of contention was the primary physical custody of their two children. The district court referred the case to a domestic relations hearing officer who recommended joint legal custody and primary residence with the Father in New Mexico. Mother objected to over forty points in the hearing officer's recommendations and requested a hearing with the district court. The district court did not hold an in-person hearing but adopted the hearing officer's recommendations in its final decree of dissolution of marriage.The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, arguing that Rule 1-053.2 (2017) required an in-person hearing and that the district court did not adequately address Mother's objections. The Court of Appeals also held that the district court failed to establish the basis for its decision.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico disagreed with the Court of Appeals' interpretation of Rule 1-053.2 (2017). The Supreme Court held that the rule does not require an in-person hearing. The court also concluded that the district court provided a reasoned basis for its decision when it independently reviewed the record and adopted the hearing officer's recommendations in the final order. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the district court had jurisdiction to clarify the record and amend the final decree while the case was on appeal. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Rawlings v. Rawlings" on Justia Law

The case involves Sandi Taylor and Mary Taylor, a mother and daughter duo who operated a licensed daycare in Portales, New Mexico. In July 2017, they transported twelve children to a nearby park for lunch and playtime. Upon returning to the daycare, they failed to notice that two children, less than two years old, were still in the vehicle. The children were left in the vehicle for over two-and-a-half hours, resulting in one child's death and severe neurological injuries to the other due to heat exposure. The State charged each defendant with reckless child abuse by endangerment resulting in death and great bodily harm, both first-degree felonies.The case was initially tried in the district court, where the jury convicted each defendant of reckless child abuse resulting in death and great bodily harm. Each defendant was sentenced to eighteen years for each count, totaling thirty-six years each. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions in a precedential opinion.The case was then reviewed by the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico. The court found that the jury instructions used at the defendants' joint trial were confusing and misdirected due to the use of an inappropriate conjunctive term in the complex, essential-elements instructions. The court held that the misuse of the term "and/or" in the jury instructions required the reversal of the defendants' reckless child abuse convictions. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to permit a retrial without violating the defendants' right to be free from double jeopardy. Therefore, the court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over child support between the biological father and the paramour of the child's deceased mother. The biological parents of the child never married, and the mother began a romantic relationship with the paramour while she was pregnant. After the mother's death, the child moved in with the biological father. The paramour, who had been living with the mother and child, filed a complaint for partial physical custody, claiming he stood in loco parentis to the child. The court granted him partial physical custody but no legal custody rights. The biological father then filed a complaint seeking child support payments from the paramour.The trial court dismissed the father's support action, holding that under the precedent set by A.S. v. I.S., the paramour had no obligation to support the child. The Superior Court reversed, holding that the paramour's actions represented a proactive pursuit to assume parental duties of the child that would otherwise belong to the father, and therefore, he had an obligation to support the child.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court's decision, holding that the paramour is not a "parent" obligated to pay child support. The court held that the paramour does not fit into the class of third-parties obligated to pay support pursuant to the rule announced in A.S. because he does not have legal custody of the child. He has partial physical custody only, which is akin to the visitation rights obtained by the former stepfather in Drawbaugh. The court emphasized that the policy consideration in this case is that expressed in McNutt and Drawbaugh: acts of generosity should not be discouraged by creating a law which would require anyone who begins such a relationship to continue financial support until the child is eighteen years old. View "Caldwell v. Jaurigue" on Justia Law

The case involves a mother, J.C. (Jan), who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features. The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) became involved with Jan and her family in 2018 when she was involuntarily hospitalized for manic and paranoid behavior. The Division implemented a safety plan that mandated temporary supervision of Jan’s contact with her children. After a series of referrals and investigations, the Division filed a complaint in 2020, and the Family Part granted the Division care and supervision of the children. In 2021, the Law Guardian sought to dismiss the Title 30 action due to Jan’s lack of cooperation with the Division. The court discontinued the Division’s care and supervision of the children but dismissed the litigation with restraints, considering Jan's mental health issues.The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification. The Appellate Division held that the family court could dismiss a Title 30 action while maintaining restraints on a parent’s conduct. The court reasoned that the family court did not enter permanent restraints but continued the restraints that existed during the litigation.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the family court does not have the authority under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12 to dismiss a Title 30 action and continue restraints on a parent’s conduct. If the family court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to continue the restraints on a parent’s conduct, it must keep the case open to facilitate judicial oversight of the Division’s continued involvement, while safeguarding a parent’s right to counsel. The case was remanded to the Family Part to reinstate the Title 30 action or dismiss the case without restraints. View "New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. J.C. and K.C." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Darren Findling, a professional guardian, and Auto-Owners Insurance Company. Findling was appointed as the guardian for two individuals, Mary Ann Malloy and Dana Jenkins, who were incapacitated due to automobile accidents. Findling, along with employees of his law firm, provided various guardianship services to Malloy and Jenkins, and sought reimbursement from Auto-Owners for these services under the no-fault act. Auto-Owners declined to reimburse for the services performed by the employees of Findling’s law firm, arguing that the services were not lawfully rendered.The Oakland County Probate Court granted Findling’s motions for partial summary disposition, ruling in favor of Findling. Auto-Owners appealed, but the Court of Appeals initially denied the appeal. The Supreme Court then remanded the cases to the Court of Appeals for consideration. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that a guardian is only required to comply with certain statutory provisions to lawfully delegate guardianship powers, but not duties, to employees.The Supreme Court of Michigan, in a unanimous opinion, held that a professional guardian cannot, without executing a power of attorney complying with certain statutory provisions, lawfully delegate to employees their final decision-making authority over a guardianship “power” that is explicitly listed in the statute or over any guardianship task that alters or impairs the incapacitated individual’s rights, duties, liabilities, or legal relations. However, a professional guardian may lawfully have employees assist in exercising a guardianship power and may have employees perform any other guardianship task on behalf of the professional guardian. The Supreme Court vacated the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the cases for further proceedings. View "In Re Guardianship Of Mary Ann Malloy" on Justia Law

The case involves Christopher Vargas Zayas, who was convicted for malice murder and a related crime in connection with the shooting death of his girlfriend, Carly Andrews. The shooting occurred in September 2018, and Zayas was indicted for multiple charges, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, family violence, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Zayas was found guilty on all five counts and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.Zayas appealed his convictions, arguing that the circumstantial evidence at trial was insufficient to exclude the alternative hypothesis that the pistol discharged accidentally as Andrews grabbed it. He also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements he made to investigators at the police station before he received Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court of Georgia, however, affirmed the convictions, concluding that the circumstantial evidence authorized the jury to reject Zayas's alternative hypothesis as unreasonable, that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to seek to suppress Zayas's statements, and that Zayas suffered no prejudice from any instructional error. View "ZAYAS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a child, R.N., who was removed from his mother's care and placed in foster care with Ben and Charissa Wagner. The Wagners had previously adopted two of the mother's other children. The Department of Public Health and Human Services was granted temporary legal custody of R.N. and ordered the mother to complete a treatment plan. The Department later filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights due to her failure to complete the treatment plan and alleged abandonment of R.N. However, the mother began to engage with the Department and made positive changes, leading to the Department's shift from termination to reunification.The Wagners, unhappy with the Department's change of stance, filed a motion to intervene, asserting that it was appropriate under M. R. Civ. P. 24 and § 41-3-422(9)(b), MCA. The District Court granted the Wagners' intervention motion, despite objections from the mother, the Department, and the guardian ad litem. The Wagners then filed a motion seeking an order for R.N. to be immediately placed in their care and for the Department to pursue termination of the mother's parental rights. The District Court did not set a hearing or issue a determination on the Wagners' motion. The Department filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the District Court granted.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court found that the District Court had misinterpreted the law when it allowed the Wagners to intervene. The court also ruled that the Wagners did not have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of R.N. because the mother's rights had not been terminated. Furthermore, the court held that neither the District Court nor the Supreme Court had the authority to order or compel the Department to refile and prosecute its petition for termination. View "In re R.N." on Justia Law

The case involves an appellant, G.G., who sought renewal of a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her former partner, G.S. The original DVRO was issued based on stalking. The appellant and respondent were former romantic partners and parents of two young children. The appellant testified that the respondent had repeatedly attempted to control her during their relationship, including planting a listening device in their home, taking her phone, and following her to work. After the relationship ended, the respondent continued to stalk the appellant, appearing at her home uninvited at least 70 times. The appellant filed a request for a DVRO, which was granted for a two-year period.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially issued the DVRO. After the DVRO was issued, the appellant's unwanted contact with the respondent was reduced, but not entirely eliminated. The appellant filed a request to renew the DVRO two weeks before its expiration, asking that the order be made permanent. The trial court found no evidence that the respondent had intentionally violated the DVRO and concluded that the appellant's fear, while genuine, was not reasonable. The request to renew the DVRO was denied.The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four. The court found that the trial court did not apply the correct legal standard in denying the renewal of the DVRO. The court held that a DVRO can be renewed based on the original facts, regardless of whether they involved physical or non-physical abuse, and renewal is not conditioned on the presence or absence of "ongoing" events. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing, directing the trial court to reconsider the request for renewal consistent with the legal framework outlined in the decision. View "G.G. v. G.S." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Laleh Taghvaei Mohammadijoo and Ramin Dadashian, who were married in Iran and later settled in California. The couple separated after 12 years of marriage. The main contention revolves around two missing assets: approximately $150,000 in community funds that Mohammadijoo secured through a home equity line of credit (HELOC) and transferred to Iran for her brother to manage, and approximately $170,000 of separate property proceeds that Dadashian inherited from his father’s real estate investments in Iran. Dadashian argued that Mohammadijoo had exclusive management and control over these assets post-separation, and thus, the burden of proof should be shifted to her to account for these missing assets.The trial court declined to shift the burden of proof to Mohammadijoo. It found that there was no credible evidence as to what happened to the funds. The court also sanctioned Mohammadijoo for violating her statutory disclosure obligations but did not charge her with the value of the missing assets.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Two reversed the judgment. The court held that the burden-shifting framework applies when one spouse solely controls and manages a relationship with a third party who directly oversees the management and investment of community funds post-separation. In such a case, the managing spouse must account for the missing assets. The court also extended this burden-shifting framework to missing separate property. Therefore, the trial court erred in declining to shift the burden of proof to Mohammadijoo regarding the missing assets. The case was remanded for a retrial of the community property issues. View "Marriage of Dadashian" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over parental rights and responsibilities between a mother and father who filed for divorce. The couple, who married in Vermont in 2006 and had two children, moved to California in 2008. The mother was the primary caregiver, while the father was actively involved in the children's lives. In 2016, they moved back to Vermont. In 2021, due to financial strain and dissatisfaction with his job, the father wanted to move back to California. The mother agreed to look for work in California, but did not commit to staying there. By August 2021, neither party had found work and the mother returned to Vermont with the children. The father returned to Vermont in the fall but moved back to California in the spring of 2022 without informing the mother of his intention to move permanently.The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Family Division, found that the father's attempt to move the family to California constituted abuse within the statutory meaning, as it risked and actually caused harm to the psychological growth, development, and welfare of the children. The court awarded the mother sole legal and primary physical rights and responsibilities, subject to a parent-child contact schedule that gave the father approximately equal time with the children. The father appealed this decision.The Vermont Supreme Court agreed with the father that the finding of abuse was clearly erroneous and struck that finding. However, the court affirmed the rest of the order, stating that the remaining findings were sufficient to support the award of parental rights and responsibilities to the mother. The court found that both parents were able to provide the children with love and guidance and meet their material and developmental needs. However, the court also found that the father had a tendency to be controlling and belittling toward the mother and expressed concern that if the father were given the power to make legal decisions for the children, he might have difficulty putting their interests ahead of his own or supporting the mother's relationship with them. View "Centeno v. Centeno" on Justia Law