Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The case pertains to a marital dissolution dispute in Indiana where the husband's police pension constituted the majority of the couple's marital estate. The husband was reluctant to share his pension with his wife, expressing his intention to disregard any court order mandating him to do so. As a response, the trial court ordered the husband to secure and subsidize a life insurance policy to ensure the wife received her share of the marital estate. The husband challenged the trial court's authority, arguing that the court did not consider the tax implications of his future pension payments.The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision. It ruled that the trial court had broad statutory authority to order a security or other guarantee, such as a life insurance policy, when necessary, to secure the division of property. The court also held that the husband had waived his challenge regarding the tax consequences of his future pension payments.The facts of the case reveal that the husband and wife had been married for nearly twenty-six years. The husband's police pension had a market value of over $1.1 million, constituting over 85% of the marital estate. The husband was unwilling to share his pension with his wife, and the wife expressed concern that she might not receive anything. The trial court ordered the husband to make monthly payments and obtain a life insurance policy that named her as owner and beneficiary. The husband contested this order, leading to the appeal. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, maintaining that the court had the authority to secure the wife's share of the marital estate through a life insurance policy. View "Cooley v. Cooley" on Justia Law

This case involves a minor plaintiff, identified as S.W., who suffered severe injuries inflicted by her father's girlfriend. The State of Montana's Department of Public Health and Human Services was sued based on claims that it negligently failed to remove S.W. from her father's home prior to the injuries. The District Court ruled that the state's child abuse investigation was negligent and had led to S.W.'s injuries. A jury awarded S.W. over $16 million in damages.Several issues were raised on appeal, including whether the District Court was correct in deciding that the state's immunity provision did not cover the State, but only individual persons, whether the state was negligent as a matter of law, and whether the assault on S.W. was foreseeable.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the District Court was correct in its interpretation that the state's immunity provision did not extend to the State. However, the Supreme Court found that the District Court erred in its summary judgment that the State was negligent as a matter of law and that the assault on S.W. was foreseeable as a matter of law. The Court ruled that these issues contained material factual disputes that should be left to a jury. The Supreme Court also held that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing a disproportionate sanction on the State for spoliation of evidence. The judgment was reversed, the jury’s verdict was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial. View "S. W. v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, F.K. (the Mother) filed a petition challenging the juvenile court's decision to terminate her reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing regarding her daughter, A.R. The Mother contended that the Santa Barbara County Department of Child Welfare Services (the department) did not adequately consider her grief over the death of A.R.'s twin sister and did not provide reasonable reunification services. She also claimed that six months of services were insufficient.The Mother had a history of untreated alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and criminal convictions related to these issues. The juvenile court ordered her to receive reunification services after finding the dependency petition true and removing A.R. from her custody. The services aimed at addressing her substance abuse and its impact on her ability to safely parent A.R.The juvenile court decided to terminate the reunification services at the six-month review hearing after concluding that the Mother failed to make substantial progress in the court-ordered treatment plan. The court reasoned that it did not have discretion to extend services unless the Mother showed substantial compliance with the case plan. The court also found that the department had made reasonable efforts to return A.R. to the Mother's custody by providing reasonable services.The Court of Appeal agreed with the Mother's contention that the juvenile court erred in terminating the reunification services. The court noted that, at the six-month review, the juvenile court had the discretion to continue the case and forego setting a hearing to terminate parental rights even if it did not find a substantial probability of the child returning to the parent. The court concluded that the juvenile court did not exercise its discretion because it incorrectly believed it was bound to terminate services due to the Mother's lack of substantial progress. The Court of Appeal ordered the juvenile court to conduct a new section 366.21 hearing. View "F.K. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Carol Sue Burris was convicted of mistreatment of a dependent adult and the second-degree reckless murder of her husband, Michael Burris, who suffered from dementia and other significant health issues. Carol, as Michael's sole caregiver, was found to have neglected his care and prevented others from helping him. Michael subsequently died of pneumonia with severe emaciation as a significant underlying factor.Carol appealed her conviction, arguing that her conviction for reckless but unintentional second-degree murder should be reversed, as it was based solely on a failure of care—that is, on things she did not do rather than affirmative acts she did. Her argument was premised on the idea that she had no duty to act—to provide the care at issue—under these facts.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Carol owed a clearly defined legal duty of care to her husband, based on their marital relationship, her voluntary assumption of Michael's care, and her role as Michael's sole caregiver under K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 21-5417. The prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were found not to be in error, and thus, Carol's convictions were upheld.The court held that a person may be held criminally liable for a failure to act if that person owes a legal duty of care, which can arise out of either common law or legislative enactment. A legal duty of care is imposed at common law when a person is in a special relationship with another, such as marriage, or when a person has voluntarily assumed the care of another and has prevented others from rendering aid. K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 21-5417 imposes a legal duty of care on the primary caregivers of dependent adults. View "State v. Burris" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction and sentence of Timothy Marbley for aggravated domestic violence. The case originated from an incident in April 2020, where officers responded to a disturbance at an apartment complex. They found Sherita Lynch, Marbley's girlfriend, with injuries and a trail of blood leading from the apartment. Marbley was not present at the scene. Lynch and Marbley both testified at the trial, providing different accounts of the incident.The court noted that Marbley's counsel had filed a brief asserting that there were no arguable issues for review and complied with the procedures set out in Lindsey v. State when an attorney believes there are no appealable issues. Despite being given an opportunity, Marbley did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the entire record, the court concurred with Marbley's counsel and found no issues that warranted appellate review.Consequently, the court affirmed Marbley's conviction for aggravated domestic violence and his sentence of ten years, five of which were suspended with nonreporting, supervised probation. View "Marbley v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

The case originates from a dispute over the jurisdiction for a child custody matter. The parties involved are Justin Aldava and Alyssa Baum, parents of H.A., a child born in Texas in 2019. The couple moved from Texas to Kentucky, then to Washington for Aldava's work, and back to Texas. Eventually, Baum and H.A. moved back to Kentucky. In November 2020, Baum filed a petition for an order of protection in Kentucky, indicating she sought temporary custody of H.A. Aldava filed a custody petition in Texas in December 2020. The issue arises from the interpretation of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), specifically the definition of "home state" and "temporary absence".The Supreme Court of Kentucky concluded that under the UCCJEA, a bright-line, objective standard should be used to determine a child's "home state" - focusing on where the child has lived in the six months preceding the custody proceeding, and not the intent of the parties. Applying this standard, the court found that neither Texas nor Kentucky had initial jurisdiction over H.A. when custody was first raised, as H.A. had not lived in any state long enough to establish "home state" status. However, Kentucky obtained temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA due to Baum's petition for an order of protection. Consequently, Kentucky was the only state with any jurisdiction over H.A., and the custody action should be heard there. The court concluded that the Texas court's later finding that Texas was H.A.'s home state did not divest Kentucky of jurisdiction. The ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. View "ALDAVA V. JOHNSON" on Justia Law

The case involves a mother appealing against a juvenile court's ruling that she neglected her infant son, AE. The infant was born prematurely and consistently underweight. Despite numerous hospitalizations and health professional instructions, the child's weight did not significantly increase while under the parents' care. However, the child showed substantial weight gain while hospitalized. The State filed a petition alleging that the parents neglected AE by failing to provide adequate care necessary for the child's well-being. The juvenile court ruled in favor of the State concerning the mother, but not the father, due to insufficient evidence against him.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the evidence of the child's ability to gain weight in a hospital setting versus his home was enough to support the neglect adjudication against the mother. The court stressed that although the mother followed medical instructions and took AE to medical appointments, the child's failure to thrive at home pointed to neglect. This case demonstrates that the courts assess neglect based on the child's well-being and not necessarily on the intent or efforts of the parents. View "In the Interest of A. E. v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

This case involves an appeal against a judgment from the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, which committed the appellant, G.M., into the custody and care of the Montana State Hospital (MSH) for involuntary mental health treatment. The key issue at hand is whether the District Court erroneously found that G.M. was unable to adequately care for her own basic needs and safety based on hearsay statements made by her husband through the testimony of a court-appointed professional.G.M., aged 66 at the time of the petition for involuntary mental health commitment in 2021, was alleged to be suffering from a diagnosed psychotic mental disorder. G.M.'s husband's statements, along with her own behavior and assessments from mental health professionals, were the basis for the court's decision. G.M.'s counsel repeatedly objected to the court-appointed professional's testimony regarding her husband's out-of-court statements, but these objections were overruled.G.M. testified on her own behalf, denying having a mental disorder or requiring treatment. Despite this, the District Court found that due to her diagnosed schizophrenic and delusional mental disorder, G.M. was “substantially unable to provide for her own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health, or safety."On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The court found that the lower court's decision was not clearly erroneous and was supported by substantial admissible evidence. The court stated that the hearsay statements of G.M.'s husband were admissible under the rules of evidence to explain the underlying rationale for the court-appointed professional person's expert opinion. The court also noted that the judgment was independently supported by the professional person's personal observations and opinions on G.M.'s condition and ability to care for her own needs and safety. View "In re Matter of G.M." on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed a case involving the question of whether the federal Title X program preempts a Texas law that gives parents the right to consent to their teenagers’ obtaining contraceptives. Alexander Deanda, a father raising his children according to Christian beliefs, challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' administration of Title X, which funds clinics providing contraceptives to minors without parental notification or consent. Deanda contested this on the grounds that it nullifies his right to consent to his children's medical care, infringing on his state-created right. The court held that Title X does not preempt Texas's law. The statute does not preempt Deanda's parental right to consent to his children's obtaining contraceptives because Title X's goal (encouraging family participation in teens’ receiving family planning services) is not undermined by Texas's goal (empowering parents to consent to their teen’s receiving contraceptives). Instead, the two laws reinforce each other. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment to the extent it declared that Title X does not preempt Texas's parental consent law. However, the court reversed the partial vacatur of a regulation which forbids Title X grantees from notifying parents or obtaining their consent, as the regulation was not challenged by Deanda under the Administrative Procedure Act or otherwise. View "Deanda v. Becerra" on Justia Law

In a dispute between Nancy Robayo and Luis Robayo, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Family Court. The case focuses on a marital settlement agreement between the plaintiff, Nancy Robayo, and the defendant, Luis Robayo, who are former spouses. The plaintiff argued that she is entitled to survivor benefits in the defendant's federal civilian pension according to their marital settlement agreement. The agreement was silent on the issue of survivor benefits, leading the court to find it ambiguous in this regard.The Supreme Court concluded that the most equitable construction of the agreement does not entitle the plaintiff to survivor benefits. The court's decision was based on the circumstances of the parties' marriage, their separation, and the context of their agreement. The parties had lived separately in different states for sixteen years during their twenty-eight-year marriage and had acknowledged in their marital settlement agreement that they had not had a "marital relationship" since 2010. The court found that all of the plaintiff's rights to the defendant's pensions ended on June 30, 2018, as stated in the agreement.The Supreme Court also addressed the plaintiff's argument that the trial justice erred in taking judicial notice of defense counsel's experience litigating in the Family Court. The court found that this did not constitute judicial error. View "Robayo v. Robayo" on Justia Law