Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

This case involves the appeal of a Superior Court judgment in favor of the intervenor, Isabel DaPina Costa, following the grant of her motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Clara Martins, is the mother of Orlando A. Da Cruz who died in 2008. His death certificate referred to Costa as his spouse, but Martins disputed this, claiming Costa was merely Da Cruz's "live-in girlfriend". Martins filed a complaint in Superior Court in 2019 seeking to amend her son's death certificate. Costa intervened, arguing that the applicable statute of limitations, under G.L. 1956 § 9-1-13(a), had expired. The Superior Court granted Costa's motion for summary judgment, and Martins appealed.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. On appeal, Martins argued that her claim was not a civil action and therefore not subject to the statute of limitations under § 9-1-13(a). She pointed to another statute, G.L. 1956 § 23-3-21, which governs the correction and amendment of vital records, as the controlling statute for her claim. However, the Court found that Martins had not raised this argument at the lower court level, and thus it was not preserved for appellate review. Even if it had been preserved, the Court would have held that § 9-1-13(a) applies to her claim.The Court noted that while some requests to amend vital records may not be subject to a statute of limitations, not all such requests require the commencement of a civil action. In this case, Martins had commenced a civil action by filing her complaint in Superior Court, and as such, her claim was subject to the statute of limitations under § 9-1-13(a). Therefore, her complaint was barred by this statute. View "In re Da Cruz" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from a prolonged divorce proceeding in Illinois. The appellant, Masud M. Arjmand, sought to dissolve his marriage to Muneeza R. Arjmand in 2009. In the course of the proceedings, the appellant filed multiple petitions for substitution of judge and a separate complaint against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC and the Stogsdill Law Firm. The circuit court dismissed the appellant's complaint with prejudice, and this dismissal order was affirmed by the appellate court based on the doctrine of res judicata.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, the main issue was whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider prior orders denying the appellant’s petition and motion for substitution of judge in conjunction with an appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a). The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment that it lacked jurisdiction to review the petition and motion.The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 304(a) applies exclusively to final orders and does not provide jurisdiction to review rulings on requests for substitution of judge. The Court emphasized the policy disfavoring piecemeal appeals and stated that the circuit court’s Rule 304(a) findings were limited to determining the propriety of the dismissal of the appellant’s complaint. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the appellate court should have considered the rulings on his substitution requests to promote judicial economy, noting that principles of judicial economy may not override the jurisdictional barrier imposed by an Illinois Supreme Court rule. View "In re Marriage of Arjmand" on Justia Law

In this Nebraska case, the appellant, Christian G., filed a motion to vacate a domestic abuse protection order issued against him, arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and that the court erred in excluding his affidavit, which sought to prove he did not receive timely notice of the hearing. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that by filing a request for a hearing on the protection order, Christian made a general appearance in court, thereby conferring the court personal jurisdiction over him. The court also held that while an affidavit may be used in motion practice, including for preliminary, collateral, and interlocutory matters, it is not exempt from the rules of evidence. The court determined that the portion of Christian's affidavit that contained hearsay was correctly excluded by the district court because Christian did not properly limit his offer to the admissible parts of the affidavit. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court's ruling that denied Christian's motion to vacate the protection order. View "K. v. G." on Justia Law

In the State of Washington, two brothers, Alejandro S. Martinez and Eduardo S. Martinez, were charged with separate counts of sexually abusing their younger stepbrothers in their shared family home. The State of Washington sought to join the two cases for trial on the grounds that the charges and evidence were virtually identical, and to minimize the number of times the victims would have to testify. Despite objections from both brothers, the trial court granted the State's motion for joinder and both brothers were found guilty as charged. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the trial court abused its discretion when it improperly joined the two cases without first meeting at least one of the two bases for joinder under CrR 4.3(b)(3) — whether the offenses were part of a common scheme or plan, or were so closely connected in respect to time, place, and occasion. The court found that the brothers acted independently, were charged with separate criminal acts occurring at separate times, and there was no evidence they acted in concert or as part of a common scheme or plan. The court also found that Alejandro, but not Eduardo, was prejudiced by the joinder. Consequently, the court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded Alejandro's case to the trial court for further proceedings. The court found no violation of Eduardo's constitutional right to due process. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In the case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, George E. Gooley appealed and Danielle L. Fradette cross-appealed from the District Court’s judgments on their post-divorce and post-trial motions. The court held that the specific provisions concerning parent-child contact and the computation of Gooley’s income, the determination of Gooley’s imputed income, and the award of Fradette’s attorney fees could not be meaningfully reviewed without clear and specific findings. Therefore, those parts of the judgment were vacated and sent back to the lower court for further findings.The couple had divorced and had two minor children. There were several modifications to the divorce judgment, most notably in relation to the children's contact schedule with each parent. Later, Gooley filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Fradette was not following the contact schedule set by the court. Fradette filed a motion for post-judgment relief, requesting modifications to parental rights and responsibilities and asking for attorney fees. Fradette later amended her motion to add her decision to move from Maine to Massachusetts as a basis for modification. The court approved the amendment and held a four-day hearing on the parties’ post-judgment motions.The court found that Fradette met her burden of demonstrating that there had been a substantial change in circumstances due to her plan to relocate to Massachusetts, and granted her motion for post-judgment relief in part. The court awarded Fradette primary residency of the children and the right of final decision-making for the children’s education, and awarded the parties shared parental rights and responsibilities in all other respects. Gooley was awarded contact with the children on specific weekends and Wednesday evenings. The court also ordered Gooley to pay Fradette attorney fees of $30,000.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments in part but vacated the portions of the judgment related to parent-child contact, computation of Gooley’s income, determination of Gooley’s imputed income, and the award of Fradette’s attorney fees. The court remanded the case for further findings on these matters. View "Gooley v. Fradette" on Justia Law

In a domestic violence dispute that led to dueling restraining orders, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial court's decision to award attorney's fees to Peter Henri Dragones III, the prevailing party. Both Dragones and his opponent, Kerry Calkins, had sought restraining orders against each other in 2022. The trial court granted Dragones's request and denied Calkins's. Subsequently, Dragones moved for attorney's fees under Family Code section 6344. While the case was pending, the legislature repealed the prior version of section 6344 and enacted a new one, which made it easier for a prevailing petitioner to obtain fees. Both parties contended that the prior version of section 6344 should apply. However, the appellate court held that the current version of section 6344 applies retroactively to all cases pending on its effective date, including this case. This decision was based on California's general rule of retroactivity for amendments to the Family Code and the established principle that newly enacted attorney fee statutes apply to cases pending on their effective date. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under the new statute. View "Dragones v. Calkins" on Justia Law

The case in review involves Michele McKee, who claimed a homestead exemption for a property in Palm Springs where she formerly lived with her partner, Laura O’Kane. McKee argued that she should qualify for California’s homestead exemption, which partially protects the debtor’s home from creditors. However, she didn't physically reside in the property when she filed her bankruptcy petition and the court determined she didn't have the intent to return.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying McKee the homestead exemption. The court held that McKee did not meet her burden of proving that she either physically occupied the property or intended to return to it. The court did not accept McKee's argument that because her partner's abuse made it impossible for her to return to the property, her testimony that she wished to do so should be enough to establish a homestead. The court noted that McKee had demonstrated no signs of intent to return, such as leaving her personal belongings at the property or retaining its address on her driver's license, therefore she did not show entitlement to a homestead exemption. View "MCKEE V. ANDERSON" on Justia Law

In early 2022, a three-year-old child, L.C., was taken from his mother, D.C., after she was arrested for transporting fentanyl pills with L.C. in the car. After the juvenile court removed L.C. from his mother's care, D.C. returned to Mexico on the advice of her criminal defense attorney. Despite being in Mexico, D.C. maintained a relationship with L.C. through weekly video calls and completed necessary programs as part of her case plan, including a drug treatment program, individual counseling, and parenting classes. However, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services expressed concerns about the validity of her drug tests performed by Mexico's child protection agency. At a 12-month status review hearing, the juvenile court terminated D.C.'s reunification services, citing her failure to return to California for drug testing and other services, speculation about L.C.'s developmental services in Mexico, and D.C.'s refusal to surrender herself in response to an arrest warrant.L.C. sought relief, arguing that there was no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that returning him to his mother would create a substantial risk of detriment to his safety or well-being. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven agreed with L.C. and found that the mother had complied with her case plan, maintained a bond with L.C., and that Mexico's child protection agency could provide services to the mother and L.C. Therefore, the court granted the petition, vacated the juvenile court's termination of reunification services, and ordered a new review hearing to consider any developments since the last hearing. View "L.C. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

This case concerned the Office of Children’s Services' (OCS) decision to take emergency custody of a baby who tested positive for drugs at birth, and the subsequent legal proceedings that ensued. Both parents initially expressed interest in voluntarily relinquishing their parental rights, but the court found that the relinquishments were not valid because the forms were not dated or signed by an OCS witness. The foster parents opposed OCS's plan to move the baby from their home to her maternal aunt’s home and were granted permission to intervene for a placement review hearing. After the hearing, the court concluded that OCS had abused its discretion in deciding to move the child and granted the mother's motion to withdraw her putative relinquishment. The foster parents then filed a motion to reconsider the order allowing the mother to withdraw her relinquishment. The court granted the foster parents’ motion and reversed its order withdrawing the relinquishment. The court then terminated the parental rights of both parents without holding an evidentiary hearing. OCS and both parents appealed the superior court’s decisions. The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska held that it was error to allow the foster parents’ continued intervention, to reinstate the relinquishments, and to terminate parental rights. The court vacated all the orders relating to those errors and remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings. The court clarified that it was an abuse of discretion to permit the foster parents to continue to intervene regarding the validity of the parents’ relinquishments, to revisit the validity of the relinquishments, and to issue termination orders without providing the parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard, as well as a legal error to issue a termination order without making a best interests finding. View "Tara R. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of Iowa, the case involved a dispute between divorced parents who held joint legal custody of their children. The parents disagreed on whether their children should receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The mother filed an application for vaccination determination after unsuccessful mediation, seeking the district court's authorization to vaccinate the children. The district court dismissed the case, concluding it lacked the authority to act. The court of appeals reversed the decision, instructing the district court to hear the mother's application on the merits.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Iowa vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. The Supreme Court held that the language of Iowa Code section 598.1(3) provides parents with equal participation in decisions affecting their children's medical care. The court found that the mother's application for vaccination determination attempted to circumvent the dissolution decree that gave the parents joint legal custody. Without a request for a modification of the custody agreement, the district court did not have the authority to resolve the parents' dispute. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not have the authority to resolve the parties' conflict over vaccinating their children against COVID-19. View "In re Marriage of Frazier" on Justia Law