Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Russell Patrick Benedict, who was convicted of sexually abusing his sixteen-year-old daughter, AB. During the investigation, Benedict's cellphone was seized, and a warrant was obtained to search its contents. However, the phone's contents were never searched as Benedict claimed he could not remember the passcode. After his conviction, Benedict filed a motion for the return of his and AB's cellphones. The State objected to the return of Benedict's phone, suspecting it contained nude photos of AB, which would constitute child pornography. The district court denied Benedict's motion without taking evidence on it, leading to an appeal.The State conceded that the district court should have received evidence before ruling on Benedict's motion and requested a reversal and remand for the district court to receive evidence. The Supreme Court of Wyoming granted the State's motion and ordered the matter to be remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on Benedict's motion.The district court held the evidentiary hearing, during which the State argued against the return of Benedict's cellphone based on its earlier assertion that it likely contained child pornography. The district court found that the State had an interest in preventing the dissemination of child pornography and in preventing further trauma to AB. It concluded that the State had an interest in retaining Benedict's phone and denied Benedict's motion for its return. Benedict appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the State had met its burden of proving an interest in retaining Benedict's cellphone. View "Benedict v. State" on Justia Law

This case involves a marital dissolution proceeding between Monique Covington Moore and Charles Moore. During the discovery process, Covington served deposition subpoenas for the production of business records on nonparties Rocket Lawyer, Inc. and Acendi Interactive Company, LLC. Both companies objected and refused to comply with most of the subpoenas’ demands. Covington then filed a motion to compel their compliance. The trial court granted the motion in substantial part and ordered each company to pay Covington $25,000 in monetary sanctions. The companies appealed, raising several claims of error regarding the trial court’s rulings.The trial court had found that Rocket Lawyer and Acendi did not act with the requisite substantial justification in resisting the subpoenas. The court ordered them to comply with most of the document demands, subject to a protective order, and imposed monetary sanctions. The companies appealed, arguing that Covington’s motion was untimely, that her attempts to meet and confer were insufficient, and that the monetary sanctions were unreasonable, among other issues.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three affirmed the trial court’s rulings in most respects. However, it agreed with the companies that the fees and costs Covington incurred in mediation as meet and confer attempts after her discovery motions were already filed were not compensable as discovery sanctions. The court reversed the orders in part and remanded for redetermination of the sanctions awards. View "In re Marriage of Moore" on Justia Law

Danielle LeFebvre was convicted of first-degree child abuse after her seven-week-old son suffered life-threatening injuries. LeFebvre claimed that her son's injuries were accidental, resulting from a fall from her bed. However, medical examinations revealed complex skull fractures, brain contusions, and rib fractures consistent with abuse. LeFebvre was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with eighteen years to serve and the balance suspended, with probation. She appealed her conviction, but it was affirmed.LeFebvre then filed an application for postconviction relief, arguing that she was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. She claimed her trial counsel failed to consult and present a medical expert at trial and disclosed harmful information to the prosecution. The Superior Court denied her application, finding that her counsel's decision to disclose her medical records was a tactical one and that the absence of expert testimony did not deprive LeFebvre of effective assistance of counsel.LeFebvre appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, which affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court found that while the disclosure of LeFebvre's medical records was objectively unreasonable, it did not deprive her of a fair trial given the overwhelming evidence of her guilt. The court also found that the failure to consult and present an expert at trial did not satisfy the criteria for ineffective assistance of counsel. View "LeFebvre v. State" on Justia Law

Jamie Pacheco filed a divorce case against her then-husband, Kevin Pacheco, in 2015. She was represented by Jeffrey Bennett, Esq., and his firm, Legal-Ease, LLC, P.A. During the divorce proceedings, Bennett voluntarily produced to Kevin's counsel, Libby, O’Brien, Kingsley, and Champion, LLC, the complete counseling session notes of Jamie’s therapist, Sandra Falsey, with one redacted line. Libby later subpoenaed Falsey without notifying Bennett and obtained her complete counseling records related to Jamie, including the unredacted therapy notes. After the divorce proceedings concluded, Jamie, still represented by Bennett, filed an action against Libby asserting claims of abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) based on Libby obtaining Falsey’s unredacted therapy notes and disclosing them to Kevin.The Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Stewart, J.) had previously granted a motion to dismiss Jamie’s tort complaint. However, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court partially vacated the dismissal, leaving Jamie’s claims of abuse of process and IIED in dispute. Later, Libby filed a motion to disqualify Bennett, asserting that Bennett’s continued representation of Jamie would violate Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 and prejudice Libby. The Superior Court granted Libby’s motion, finding that Bennett is likely to be a necessary witness on several topics related to the case.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Bennett's actions or inactions in the treatment and disclosure of Jamie’s psychotherapy records were central to Jamie’s case, and Bennett alone had this knowledge, making his testimony relevant, material, and unobtainable from other sources. The court also found that there were sound bases in the record for the lower court’s conclusion that there would be actual prejudice in allowing Bennett to continue representing Jamie. View "Pacheco v. Libby, O'Brien, Kingsley and Champion, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a mother, Beth, who gave birth to a child, Mia, in June 2020. Both mother and child tested positive for marijuana at the hospital. Beth was discharged from the hospital two days after delivery, but Mia remained. Beth never returned to the hospital, and the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) was unable to contact or locate her because Beth provided incorrect contact information. Mia stayed in the hospital two days longer than she would have if Beth returned to take custody of her. The Division took custody of Mia and placed her in a resource home. The Division filed an action against Beth, arguing that she abused and neglected Mia because she failed to exercise a minimum degree of care in supplying Mia with food, clothing, and shelter. The trial court concluded that the Division met its burden in proving that Beth abused and neglected Mia. The Appellate Division affirmed.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that although Beth left the hospital and did not return, she left Mia in a hospital where she was undoubtedly well taken care of and her needs were met. Nothing in the facts suggested that Beth’s actions impaired Mia or put Mia in imminent danger of being impaired while she remained in the safety of the hospital’s care. The Division therefore failed to meet its burden of establishing abuse or neglect. The court reversed the Appellate Division's decision and vacated the trial court’s finding of abuse and neglect. View "New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. B.P." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between a decedent's wife and the co-personal representatives of the decedent's estate over the ownership of $100,000 and a camper under the terms of a premarital agreement. The decedent's wife, Yvonne M. White, argued that she was entitled to these assets based on the premarital agreement she had with her late husband, Leonard P. White. The co-personal representatives of Leonard's estate, his sons Jamison Patrick White and Ryan Howard White, contested this claim.The District Court for Washington County, Nebraska, ruled in favor of Yvonne, awarding her the $100,000 and the camper. The co-personal representatives appealed this decision to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. They then sought further review from the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court found that Yvonne's suit for the $100,000 and the camper did not constitute a "claim" against the estate, but rather, she was a beneficiary of the estate entitled to the assets she sought under a breach of contract theory according to the terms of the premarital agreement. Therefore, her suit was not subject to the nonclaim statute's requirements for the timely filing of a claim. The court also found that the camper was a joint asset under the premarital agreement, rejecting the co-personal representatives' argument that it was the decedent's separate property. View "White v. White" on Justia Law

Joshua and Melissa Armitage were married in June 2019 and separated in February 2023. They have one child together, born in 2020. Melissa Armitage initiated a divorce action in February 2023. The district court held a bench trial in August 2023, and subsequently awarded Melissa Armitage primary residential responsibility of the minor child, subject to Joshua Armitage’s parenting time.Joshua Armitage appealed the district court's decision, arguing that the court erred in awarding Melissa Armitage primary residential responsibility of the minor child. He contended that many of the factors that the district court found favored neither party actually supported an award of equal residential responsibility.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case under the clearly erroneous standard, which does not allow for reweighing of evidence or reassessment of witness credibility. The court considered the best interests and welfare of the child, as required by North Dakota law. The court noted that the district court had considered the evidence and made findings on the best interest factors, providing specific analysis on twelve of the factors. The court found factors (a) and (c) favored Melissa Armitage, while the remaining factors favored neither party.The Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded that the district court's findings of fact were not induced by an erroneous view of the law, were supported by the evidence, and did not leave the court with a definite and firm conviction a mistake had been made. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the award of primary residential responsibility to Melissa Armitage. View "Armitage v. Armitage" on Justia Law

The case involves a Ukrainian couple, Yasamin Karimi and Roman Tereshchenko, who divorced and disputed custody of their two children. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Tereshchenko agreed to Karimi removing the children from Ukraine for safety reasons, but requested that she bring them to him in Dubai. Instead, Karimi took the children to undisclosed locations, including the United States. Tereshchenko filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the children. The District Court granted Tereshchenko’s petition and ordered the children returned to him in France, where he was currently residing.Karimi appealed the decision, challenging the District Court's jurisdiction and arguing that Tereshchenko had consented to the children's removal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's jurisdiction and rejected Karimi's argument that Tereshchenko had consented to the children's removal. The Court of Appeals also found that the District Court had erred in determining that the children would not be exposed to a grave risk of harm if they were returned to western Ukraine. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court was permitted to order the return of the children to Tereshchenko in a third country, France, as a temporary measure due to the grave risk of harm in Ukraine. The case was remanded to the District Court to modify the order to maintain the Ukrainian courts’ authority over an ultimate custody determination. View "Tereshchenko v. Karimi" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Jessica A. Williams, who was convicted for depraved indifference murder of her son, Maddox Williams. Maddox was born to Jessica and his father in 2018, and lived with Jessica after his father's arrest in 2020. From October to December 2020, Maddox occasionally had bruises on his body when he came from Jessica's care. In March 2021, Jessica assumed sole custody of Maddox. During her custody, Maddox had multiple injuries, which Jessica attributed to his clumsiness. In June 2021, Maddox was taken to the hospital where he lost consciousness and was pronounced dead. Jessica did not appear to react strongly to Maddox’s death and left the ER shortly after his death. She was later arrested by the police.The trial court had previously heard the case, where the State sought to introduce evidence of prior bad acts by Jessica. Over Jessica's objection, the court granted the motion. At the close of the evidence, Jessica moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court denied. The jury subsequently returned a verdict of guilty and Jessica was sentenced to forty-seven years in the Department of Corrections.In the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Jessica appealed her conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting evidence related to a prior bad act, admitting evidence regarding her lack of communication with police officers, and denying her motion for a judgment of acquittal. She also argued that the cumulative effect of all three issues constituted a violation of her due process rights. The court disagreed with her contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The case involves Lucia Guh-Siesel, who filed for divorce from Brian Allan Siesel in Wyoming. Guh-Siesel claimed that she had been a resident of Teton County, Wyoming, for more than 60 days prior to filing the complaint. She also stated that she and Siesel were the parents of a minor child who had resided in Wyoming for five consecutive months before the filing of the complaint. Siesel, however, argued that Wyoming was an inconvenient forum and that California was a better forum because he had not been in Wyoming since October 2022, all potential trial witnesses were in California, and he and Guh-Siesel had never resided together in Wyoming.The District Court of Teton County held a hearing on Siesel's motion to dismiss. The court found that the parties had decided to relocate to Wyoming in 2022, and they had signed a lease for a home in Wilson, Wyoming. However, Siesel returned to California for work in October 2022 and has remained there since. Guh-Siesel, who was battling cancer, arrived in Wyoming in October 2022 and took steps to become a Wyoming resident. After the hearing, the district court granted Siesel’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court's decision and found that the lower court had abused its discretion when it dismissed the case. The Supreme Court noted that Guh-Siesel had been a Teton County, Wyoming, resident for more than 60 days immediately preceding her divorce filing, which satisfied the requirements for a Wyoming district court to acquire jurisdiction over a divorce action. The Supreme Court also found that the district court had not properly analyzed the factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Guh-Siesel v. Siesel" on Justia Law