Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights in a case concerning two deprived children. The mother, Brianna Tatum, had sought certiorari review from the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion which upheld the trial court's final order terminating her parental rights. On certiorari, Tatum claimed that the record did not support a finding that she had waived her right to a jury trial in a parental termination proceeding.The case hinged on two key questions: whether a Court Minute memorializing a contemporaneous court proceeding could support a party's oral consent to waive a jury trial in a parental termination proceeding, and whether a party who proceeds to trial without demanding a jury trial or objecting to a non-jury trial has waived any right to a jury trial. The Court answered both questions affirmatively.The Court found that Tatum had waived her right to a jury trial by her conduct, proceeding with the non-jury trial without any demand for a jury trial or raising an objection to the non-jury trial. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with a non-jury trial. Therefore, the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals was vacated, and the judgment of the trial court terminating Tatum's parental rights was affirmed. View "IN THE MATTER OF E.J.T." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled on an appeal by Allison Crary, who challenged three orders from a revocation proceeding. The orders were: denial of a motion to declare a grandparent visitation statute unconstitutional, denial of a motion for a contempt citation against Khristel and Frank Clautice, and denial of a motion for attorney fees and expenses.The case involved a minor child, with Crary having sole legal and physical custody. The Clautices, the child's maternal grandparents, had been granted visitation rights under a consent order. Crary later petitioned to revoke this order and for a contempt citation against the grandparents for non-compliance. She also sought to declare the grandparent visitation statute unconstitutional and asked for attorney fees and expenses.The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the appeal regarding the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation statute as moot, since the trial court had already revoked the grandparent visitation order on other grounds. The court also affirmed the trial court’s orders denying Crary’s contempt motion and motion for attorney fees and expenses. The court noted that Crary had not provided evidence at the hearing to support a contempt finding, and that the trial court was not required to hold a hearing or take evidence before denying the motion for attorney fees and expenses. View "CRARY v. CLAUTICE" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of Wyoming, a case involving minor children was brought forward by their parents, MK and JP-W, against the State of Wyoming. The parents challenged the juvenile court's decision to change the permanency plan for their five children from family reunification to adoption or guardianship. The parents had separated, and the children were taken into protective custody after the father was arrested for aggravated assault.The court affirmed the juvenile court's decision, stating that the Department of Family Services (DFS) had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family without success and that reunification was no longer in the children's best interest. The court found that both parents had significant obstacles to providing suitable environments for the children. The father struggled to obtain appropriate housing and had inconsistent communication with the DFS, while the mother had issues related to domestic violence and failed to complete necessary paperwork concerning past abuse allegations.Additionally, the court rejected the mother's argument that the DFS had violated her due process rights by employing the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) mechanism to assess her fitness for placement. The court also rejected the claim that the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) should not have been allowed to prove the grounds for the permanency change. Finally, the court found no violation of Mother's due process rights in admitting evidence and witness testimony by the GAL that was not disclosed until shortly before the permanency hearing. The court determined that the parents had been given adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, call their own witnesses, and present their case for reunification. View "MK v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this divorce proceeding, the Supreme Court of Texas was asked to consider whether a judgment was rendered through an email sent only to the parties' legal counsel. The case involved Eve Lynn Baker and Terry Lee Bizzle, who after nearly 20 years of marriage, filed cross-petitions for divorce. The trial court informed the parties that a same-day ruling would not be possible and that the court would "e-mail the parties with the decision" at the end of the following week.Subsequently, the trial court sent an email to the parties' attorneys outlining the allocation of assets. The court did not copy the court clerk on this email or otherwise submit it to the clerk for filing or entry in the record. The trial court later signed a modified version of Wife's proposed final decree, declaring the parties divorced on insupportability grounds and dividing the marital estate.However, the court of appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the postmortem divorce decree was void for want of subject-matter jurisdiction because the trial court had not rendered judgment completely resolving the divorce action before the wife passed away.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision, finding that the trial court did not render judgment in the privately communicated October 4th email, and the wife's subsequent death divested the trial court of jurisdiction to render judgment in the postmortem final divorce decree. The court held that public pronouncement of the trial court's decision is not a mere formalism but an official judicial action affording the decision legal significance. View "BAKER v. BIZZLE" on Justia Law

In this case, Develin Johnson appealed against the district court's decision that upheld his convictions for domestic battery and false imprisonment. The key issue in the appeal was the admissibility of Johnson's previous misdemeanor conviction for petit theft under Idaho Rule of Evidence 608(b) and whether the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Johnson argued that the district court erred in affirming the judgment of conviction because his misdemeanor conviction for theft was inadmissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 608(b) and the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the conduct leading to Johnson's 2013 misdemeanor conviction was probative of his character for truthfulness and that the prejudicial effect of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case involved a dispute between two Brazilian nationals, Heitor Ferreira da Costa and Jessica Camila Albefaro de Lima, who were previously married and had a child together. Following their divorce in Brazil, de Lima moved with the child to the United States without da Costa's knowledge. Once da Costa discovered his ex-wife and child's location, he filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention) to have the child returned to Brazil. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied da Costa's petition, concluding that the child was now settled in his new environment and it would not exercise its discretion to order the child's return. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the decision, agreeing with the lower court's conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances, including the child's age, stability and duration of residence in the new environment, relationships with family members in the United States, and his progress in learning English. The appellate court noted that returning the child to Brazil would be disruptive given the child's strong connections in the United States and his limited connections to Brazil. View "Ferreira da Costa v. Albefaro de Lima" on Justia Law

This case involves an appeal from the defendant, Royce Lanele Robinson, who was convicted of domestic violence with great bodily injury and spousal battery. The charges were based on three separate incidents involving his girlfriend, referred to as Jane Doe. Robinson contended on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of his prior domestic violence conviction without a description of the underlying facts.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three upheld the trial court's decision. The court concluded that Robinson's claim had been forfeited on appeal because he did not raise this argument in the trial court. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence of the prior conviction under Evidence Code section 1109. Even if there was an error, the court stated it would not have been prejudicial, and thus, the judgment was affirmed.The key facts of the case include a series of incidents where Robinson allegedly inflicted bodily harm on Doe. The first incident involved Robinson pushing Doe out of his moving car. In the second incident, Doe reported that Robinson had pushed down on her chest, causing a fracture. In the third incident, Doe reported a prolonged assault by Robinson. Throughout the trial, Doe provided inconsistent testimonies, and Robinson's mother testified that her son attempted to aid Doe during a choking incident. The jury found Robinson guilty of spousal battery for the first incident and guilty of inflicting Doe's chest injury for the second incident. However, Robinson was found not guilty for the charges related to the third incident. View "People v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In this case, Scott Phillips appealed against the denial of his motion for acquittal, the jury charge, and his probation conditions by the criminal division of the Superior Court, Bennington Unit. The State of Vermont Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision.The case arose from a domestic violence incident where Phillips assaulted his girlfriend and threw a knife towards her. He was charged with three counts of domestic assault, two of which he was found guilty of by a jury. His post-trial motion for acquittal and a new trial was denied by the lower court.Phillips argued that conviction under 13 V.S.A. § 1043(a)(2) required the State to prove that he threatened a household member in addition to having used or attempted to use a deadly weapon on them. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, explaining that the statute criminalizes three distinct actions: (1) using a deadly weapon on a household member; (2) attempting to use a deadly weapon on a household member; or (3) possessing and threatening to use a deadly weapon on a household member. The court found that Phillips' actions of throwing the knife in the victim's direction could be inferred as an attempt to harm her with the weapon, which satisfies the requirements of the statute.Phillips also contested the jury instructions and the lack of a special verdict form. However, the Supreme Court found no error in the lower court's instructions or its decision not to provide a special verdict form.Finally, Phillips objected to his probation conditions, which included substance use screening, a prohibition from consuming alcohol, and a prohibition from possessing deadly weapons. The Supreme Court rejected this objection as well, as Phillips had not preserved these issues for appellate review and failed to adequately argue for plain-error review in his briefing.In sum, the State of Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding no error in the interpretation of the statute, the jury instructions, or the probation conditions imposed on Phillips. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, William Nelson, appealed his conviction of first-degree domestic battery by a Lonoke County jury in the Supreme Court of Arkansas. He raised seven points on appeal: (1) substantial evidence did not support his conviction; (2) the circuit court’s refusal to recuse was an abuse of discretion; (3) the circuit court improperly denied his Batson objection; (4) the circuit court abused its discretion by limiting questions regarding sentencing during voir dire; (5) the circuit court allowed inadmissible prior-bad-acts evidence to be introduced; (6) refusal to dismiss a juror for-cause during trial was an abuse of discretion; and (7) the circuit court improperly restricted expert witness testimony or, alternatively, erred by denying a motion for a continuance to obtain a new expert. The State cross-appealed, arguing that the circuit court misinterpreted the statutory requirement to support a sentencing enhancement and improperly granted Nelson’s directed-verdict motion on the issue.The court affirmed Nelson's conviction on all points. It found that substantial evidence supported the conviction and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in any of the contested decisions. In the cross-appeal, the court dismissed the State's appeal, ruling that it did not present an issue of interpretation of the criminal rules with widespread ramifications and the resolution of the issue turned on the facts unique to the case. View "NELSON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah considered the appeal of Marianne Tyson who sought to access her sealed adoption records from 1978, in order to learn more about her birth parents' medical histories and any potential health risks. The district court had denied Tyson's petition, interpreting "good cause" as requiring more than a generalized desire to obtain health or genetic information unrelated to a specific medical condition of the petitioner. The district court also held that Tyson's reasons for wanting access to adoption records did not outweigh her birth mother's interest in privacy.The Supreme Court of Utah disagreed with the district court's interpretation of "good cause" and its application of the balancing test. The Supreme Court noted that the legislature did not define "good cause" in the statute and did not impose additional requirements to establish "good cause". The Court held that the district court erred in interpreting the statute to require something more than a general desire to know one's medical history. The Supreme Court also found that the district court did not properly balance the interests under the Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 107, as it focused solely on the birth mother’s privacy interests and did not consider Tyson's reasons for wanting to see her adoption records.The case was remanded back to the district court to reassess Tyson's petition under the correct standard. The district court must evaluate Tyson's petition under a correct interpretation of "good cause" and conduct a proper balancing test, giving weight to both the birth mother’s privacy interests and Tyson's reasons for wanting to see her adoption records. View "In re Adoption of M.A." on Justia Law