Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Jennifer and Jesse Smith divorced in 2017 after fifteen years of marriage. Jennifer, a stay-at-home mother, and Jesse, a construction superintendent, entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement requiring Jesse to pay Jennifer spousal support until January 1, 2025. The agreement included a "Review Term" stating that spousal support would be reviewed every two years. In 2018, Jesse unilaterally reduced the spousal support payments and later stopped paying altogether, leading Jennifer to file a breach of contract action.The magistrate judge dismissed Jesse's petition to modify the spousal support due to a non-merger clause, which kept the spousal support provision outside the court's jurisdiction. Jennifer then sought partial summary judgment in district court, arguing that the Review Term was too vague to be enforceable. The district court agreed, striking the Review Term but upholding the rest of the spousal support provision under the agreement's severability clause. The jury found Jesse in breach of the agreement and awarded Jennifer $76,514 in damages, plus attorney fees and costs.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the Review Term was unenforceable due to its vagueness, indefiniteness, and uncertainty. The court also upheld the district court's application of the severability clause, maintaining the enforceability of the remaining spousal support provision. Jennifer was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

In April 2022, H.H., the mother of A.E.E., was arrested for the murder of A.E.E.'s father. H.H. provided written consent for A.E.E. to be placed with the maternal aunt and uncle, A.V. and E.V., as emergency co-guardians. The maternal aunt and uncle filed a petition to be appointed as emergency and permanent co-guardians, which the paternal grandparents, K.B. and T.B., opposed, seeking guardianship themselves. The juvenile court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as emergency co-guardians pending a full hearing. After a full hearing, the court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians, and the paternal grandparents did not appeal.Following H.H.'s conviction for murder and her life sentence without parole, the maternal aunt and uncle sought to relocate out of state with A.E.E. The paternal grandparents opposed this motion and sought to remove the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians. The juvenile court granted the relocation and denied the motion to remove the co-guardians, finding that the reasons for the original appointment had not changed and that it was in A.E.E.'s best interests to remain under their guardianship.The paternal grandparents appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the juvenile court erred in its decision, citing H.H.'s conviction and alleging false testimony by the maternal aunt and uncle. They also requested a presumption against appointing family members of a parent convicted of murdering the other parent as guardians. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the juvenile court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the denial of the motion to modify the guardianship, concluding that the paternal grandparents failed to prove that removal or modification of the guardianship was in A.E.E.'s best interests. View "Interest of A.E.E." on Justia Law

Ryan Roberts and Briana Gebell are the biological parents of a child born in January 2016. In August 2016, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed a dependency, neglect, and abuse (DNA) petition against both parents due to Mother’s mental health issues and criminal charges, and Father’s substance abuse. The Bracken District Court placed the child in the temporary custody of Debbie and Nick Appleman, Father’s paternal cousins. After several incidents involving Father’s substance abuse and criminal behavior, the district court granted full custody of the child to the Applemans in July 2019.Mother filed a motion in June 2021 in the Bracken Circuit Court to regain custody or obtain visitation. The circuit court granted her supervised visitation, which was later changed to unsupervised visitation. In December 2022, Mother sought sole custody, but the circuit court denied her request, finding that she had waived her superior right to custody by being absent for most of the child’s life and that continued custody with the Applemans was in the child’s best interest.The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s decision, concluding that the record did not support a finding of waiver. The Applemans did not participate in the appeal. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, agreeing that the Applemans needed to demonstrate Mother’s unfitness or waiver of her superior rights. However, the Supreme Court reversed the part of the decision that granted immediate custody to Mother, remanding the case for further proceedings to apply the correct legal standard in determining custody. View "APPLEMAN V. GEBELL" on Justia Law

Donna Miller Bruenger, the ex-wife of the late Coleman Miller, filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Courtenay Ann Miller, Coleman’s daughter, seeking entitlement to Coleman’s Federal Employee’s Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) benefits. Coleman had failed to designate a beneficiary for his FEGLI benefits before his death, and MetLife distributed the benefits to Courtenay. Bruenger argued that Coleman’s legal obligation under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to assign her the benefits should prevail.The Jefferson Circuit Court ruled against Bruenger, concluding that federal law precluded her claim because Coleman’s employer did not receive the QDRO before his death. Bruenger’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals as untimely, and the court also imposed sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. Bruenger then sought relief under CR 60.02, which the trial court granted, allowing her to refile the appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the refiled appeal as frivolous and awarded attorney’s fees to Courtenay.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and determined that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the CR 60.02 relief. The Supreme Court held that RAP 11(B) authorizes the award of attorney’s fees as a sanction for frivolous appeals but found that the imposition of sanctions in this case violated due process because Bruenger was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction but reversed the sanctions imposed by the Court of Appeals. View "BRUENGER V. MILLER" on Justia Law

The respondent, Justin Nadeau (husband), appealed the final decree of divorce from the petitioner, Michelle Nadeau (wife), issued by the Circuit Court. The husband argued that the trial court erred in dividing the marital estate and denying his request for alimony. Additionally, the husband and his parents, James and Gail Nadeau, contended that the trial court erred in adding the parents to the action for discovery purposes only.The Circuit Court found that the parties had a wedding ceremony in June 2009, but the officiant's license had lapsed, leading to a second civil ceremony in July 2009. Before the June ceremony, the parties signed a prenuptial agreement. The husband owned properties in Rye and Portsmouth, which were transferred to a trust managed by his father before the second ceremony. The wife discovered these transfers in 2012 during an investigation by the Attorney General’s Office. The Rye property was sold in 2013 or 2014, and the State Street property was sold during the divorce proceedings. The wife filed for divorce in May 2020, and the trial court joined the husband’s parents for discovery purposes due to the husband's non-compliance with discovery orders.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court held that the trial court did not err in treating the State Street and Rye properties as part of the marital estate, as the transfers were likely fraudulent and diminished the marital estate's value. The court also found that the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion in awarding the wife the proceeds from her personal injury settlement. Additionally, the court concluded that the trial court's decision to join the husband’s parents for discovery purposes did not affect the outcome of the case, as the adverse inferences were drawn from the husband's own actions. View "In the Matter of Nadeau & Nadeau" on Justia Law

The case involves S.G., the mother of four children, aged eleven, nine, seven, and five, who were removed from her custody due to ongoing domestic violence by their father. S.G. appealed a December 20, 2023 order denying her motion to appoint a psychological expert to perform a bonding study under Evidence Code section 730. This request was made before an 18-month review hearing while she was still receiving reunification services. The juvenile court denied the motion, partly on the ground that it was improper to appoint an expert to aid S.G. in her defense and possibly because the request was deemed unripe during ongoing reunification services.The juvenile court initially declared the three older children dependents on February 27, 2020, due to domestic violence, allowing them to remain with S.G. with family maintenance services. On July 19, 2022, the youngest child was also declared a dependent. On September 29, 2022, all four children were removed from S.G.'s custody and placed in foster care. The court sustained a supplemental petition alleging continued contact between the parents and further domestic violence. Reunification services were ordered for S.G. but bypassed for the father. At the six-month and twelve-month review hearings, S.G.'s services were extended.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that a parent may request, and the court must consider, the appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in dependency proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying S.G.'s motion on the grounds that it was improper to aid her defense and possibly because it was premature. The appellate court vacated the order as to the two older children and remanded the matter for a new hearing, while dismissing the appeals concerning the two younger children as moot. View "In re P.S." on Justia Law

James Wilson and Jillian Wilson, who were married and had one minor child, divorced, leading to a custody dispute. The magistrate court awarded primary physical custody to Jillian and allowed her to relocate with the child to Australia, where both hold citizenship. Jillian was also granted sole legal custody over educational and medical decisions, while James was given two weeks of visitation annually during school breaks. James appealed the decision.The magistrate court's decision was based on several factors, including the unhealthy relationship between James and the child, characterized by controlling and manipulative behavior. The court found that James's actions, such as co-sleeping and inappropriate touching, created an environment that could potentially harm the child. The court also considered Jillian's motivations for relocating, including better family support and higher income prospects in Australia.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the magistrate court's decision. The court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Jillian to relocate with the child, as the decision was supported by substantial and competent evidence. The court also found that the magistrate court correctly applied the legal standard for relocation and considered the best interests of the child.Additionally, the Supreme Court of Idaho upheld the magistrate court's decision to limit James's physical custody and visitation, as well as the award of sole legal custody to Jillian for educational and medical decisions. The court concluded that these decisions were in the best interests of the child and were supported by substantial evidence. Jillian was awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "Wilson v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The case involves the father of a four-year-old child, Katy, who was initially placed with him by the Durham County Department of Social Services (DSS) after her mother, who had custody, was found to have substance abuse issues. DSS later discovered the father had a significant criminal history and was arrested for assault. Consequently, DSS recommended placing Katy with her paternal aunt and uncle, which the trial court approved. The trial court also found that both parents acted inconsistently with their constitutional rights as parents, although neither parent raised a constitutional claim during the trial.The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and, in a divided opinion, reversed the trial court's decision. The majority held that the trial court lacked authority to place Katy with anyone other than her father, as there were no allegations or findings that he was unfit or had acted inconsistently with his constitutional rights. The majority also ruled that the constitutional issue was preserved for appellate review because the father opposed DSS's recommendation. The dissent argued that the trial court's findings on the constitutional standard were premature and unnecessary.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and focused on whether the constitutional issue was properly preserved for appellate review. The Court held that a parent must explicitly raise a constitutional claim in the trial court to preserve it for appeal. Since the father conceded he did not argue the issue as a constitutional violation in the trial court, the Supreme Court determined the issue was not preserved. Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, emphasizing the need for parents to inform the trial court and opposing parties of any constitutional challenges to ensure proper evidence is presented. View "In re K.C." on Justia Law

A child, referred to as Liam, suffered severe injuries at one month old, including multiple fractures and bruises, while in the care of his parents. The Onslow County Department of Social Services (DSS) took custody of Liam, who now requires extensive medical care due to cerebral palsy and other conditions resulting from the abuse. Liam was placed with foster parents, Daniel and Jessica Hall, who have provided him with a stable and nurturing environment. Liam's maternal grandfather expressed interest in custody but admitted he could not provide the necessary care.The District Court of Onslow County adjudicated Liam as abused and neglected and held multiple permanency-planning hearings. The court ultimately awarded custody to the Halls, finding that reunification with the parents was not in Liam's best interest due to their inability to explain his injuries and the mother's failure to participate in his medical care. The court also considered but did not find the maternal grandfather a suitable caretaker.The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order, finding the trial court's findings insufficient under relevant statutory provisions. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new hearing.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements, including considerations of the child's best interests and the feasibility of reunification. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order awarding custody to the Halls and converting the case to a Chapter 50 civil custody proceeding. View "In re L.L." on Justia Law

Renee Sevelitte and the Estate of Joseph F. Sevelitte dispute the entitlement to the proceeds of a life insurance policy Joseph purchased during his marriage to Renee. Massachusetts law automatically revokes a spouse's beneficiary status upon divorce unless specific exceptions apply. The life insurance policy named Renee as the beneficiary, but the policy did not address the effect of divorce on beneficiary status. Renee and Joseph's divorce agreement included provisions about life insurance policies but did not explicitly state that Renee would remain the beneficiary of the policy in question.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to the Estate, determining that Renee could not establish that any exceptions to the automatic revocation applied. Renee appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that its previous decision did not determine that the divorce agreement satisfied the statutory exceptions but only that it was plausible. The court emphasized that Renee needed to provide evidence to support her claim that the divorce agreement intended to maintain her beneficiary status. The Estate presented evidence, including an affidavit from Joseph's divorce attorney and an expert report, indicating that the divorce agreement did not intend to retain Renee's beneficiary status.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Renee failed to present any evidence to create a genuine dispute about the intended meaning of the divorce agreement. Therefore, the court held that the Estate was entitled to the proceeds of the life insurance policy. View "Sevelitte v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law