Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

In this California appellate case, the key issue was whether non-monetary benefits, specifically room and board, constituted "remuneration" within the meaning of Probate Code section 21362, a provision relating to the presumption of fraud or undue influence for donative transfers to caregivers of dependent adults. The case arose when the defendant, Elvira Gutierrez, who provided care services to the decedent in exchange for room and board, was named as the sole beneficiary in the decedent’s testamentary instruments. The plaintiffs, relatives of the decedent, argued that Gutierrez was a "care custodian" under the Probate Code, and that her receipt of the decedent’s estate should be presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence. The trial court initially ruled that Gutierrez was not a care custodian because room and board did not constitute remuneration for her services. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that "remuneration" as used in section 21362 does include room and board. The Court found that such an interpretation was consistent with the term's ordinary usage, the legislative intent to protect vulnerable adults from financial exploitation, and its interpretation in other legal contexts. The Court therefore concluded that Gutierrez was a care custodian under the statute, and the decedent’s donative gifts to her were subject to the presumption of fraud or undue influence. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Robinson v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas handled a case in which a nurse claimed her employer, Scott & White Memorial Hospital, wrongfully terminated her employment in retaliation for reporting potential child abuse or neglect to the Texas Child Protective Services (CPS), which is considered a protected conduct under Section 261.110(b) of the Texas Family Code.The nurse, Dawn Thompson, had previously received two written reprimands for violating the hospital's personal-conduct policy. On the third occasion, she disclosed a child patient's protected health information to a school nurse without the parents' authorization. This was considered by the hospital as a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and a breach of the patient's rights. Consequently, Thompson was terminated.Thompson filed a lawsuit against the hospital, asserting that her termination was in violation of Family Code Section 261.110(b), which protects professionals who report child abuse or neglect in good faith from adverse employment actions.The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that Section 261.110 imposes a "but-for causation" requirement, which means that the protected conduct must be such that without it, the adverse employment action would not have occurred when it did. In this case, the court found that Thompson would have been terminated when she was due to her HIPAA violation, regardless of her report to CPS. Therefore, the court rejected Thompson's retaliation claim and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the hospital. View "SCOTT & WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. THOMPSON" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, Michael Swazey Jr. was indicted for failing to pay child support. He filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment under Rule 12(C)(2) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the statutes he allegedly violated did not apply to him. The trial court declined to consider Swazey's motion on the merits, holding that the arguments raised were not permitted under Rule 12(C)(2) but should instead be presented at the close of the state’s case at trial. Swazey subsequently pleaded guilty to all counts.On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals held that Swazey’s Rule 12(C)(2) motion was proper and should have been considered on the merits. It also held that by entering a guilty plea, Swazey did not waive his right to raise a constitutional challenge on appeal.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals' decision, stating that Swazey's motion to dismiss was appropriate under Rule 12(C)(2), and that his guilty plea did not waive his right to raise his constitutional challenge on appeal. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ohio remanded the case back to the trial court to consider Swazey's pretrial motion. View "State v. Swazey" on Justia Law

In a contentious guardianship case involving Kathleen June Jones, the court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), attorney Elizabeth Brickfield, to aid in determining Jones's best interests. The GAL filed a notice of intent to seek fees and costs at her standard hourly rate. The court awarded her those fees over Jones's objection. Jones appealed, arguing that the GAL had no right to fees when the district court order appointing her did not specify the rate, that the court improperly appointed an attorney as the GAL, and that the rate of compensation to which the GAL is entitled should be that of a fiduciary, not an attorney.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada held that Jones waived any argument pertaining to the form of the district court’s order by failing to raise the issue below. The court also held that the district court erred in interpreting NRS 159.0455(3) as requiring the court to appoint an attorney where there is no court-approved volunteer program, but this error was harmless because the district court expressly appointed an experienced attorney as the GAL due to the complexity of this matter. Lastly, the court held that the record contains substantial evidence supporting the GAL’s fee request and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the GAL the full amount of her requested fees. The court affirmed the district court’s order awarding the GAL fees. View "In re Guardianship of Jones" on Justia Law

In this case, defendant Douglas Shane Thompson was convicted for domestic violence, and a no-contact order was put in place prohibiting him from contacting his minor son. Thompson appealed against the decision, arguing that there was no evidence that he posed a threat to his son and that the no-contact order violated his fundamental right to parent his son.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho found that the lower court failed to provide adequate reasons for amending the no-contact order to prohibit all contact between Thompson and his son. The court concluded that the lower court did not exercise reason since it did not articulate any evidence that demonstrated a change in circumstances that justified the amendment of the no-contact order. It was also noted that the court did not explain what circumstances would need to change before Thompson could seek to reinitiate contact with his son.The court also observed that Thompson's argument that the no-contact order effectively terminated his parental rights was not sufficiently preserved for appeal. The court acknowledged the complexities when a judge not regularly dealing with family law issues has to analyze often competing interests involved.Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the lower court to amend the no-contact order and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

In this case, a mother and her husband (the appellants) sought to adopt the mother's biological child, A.J.B., born out of wedlock, without the consent of the child's biological father. The biological father (the appellee) was incarcerated for a significant portion of the statutory period under consideration. The appellants claimed that the biological father failed to maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the child and failed to contribute to the child's support, both of which would allow for adoption without his consent under Oklahoma law. The trial court denied the adoption, finding that the evidence was insufficient to grant an adoption without the biological father's consent. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals agreed that the father did not willfully fail to support the child, but found that the appellants had established a prima facie case that the father did not maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the child. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the father's defenses.However, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma disagreed with the Court of Civil Appeals. The Supreme Court found that the mother had intentionally concealed her and the child's whereabouts from the biological father, thus making it impossible for him to maintain a relationship with the child. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgement, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adoption without the father's consent because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the application for adoption without consent. View "IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A.J.B." on Justia Law

In this case, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a lower court's decision to terminate a mother's parental rights to her two children. The mother appealed the termination of her rights, asserting that she was deprived of effective legal counsel during the proceedings. The lower court had determined that the children were in jeopardy due to the mother's chronic alcohol abuse, unsafe behavior, and poor decision-making, which included permitting a convicted sex offender to care for the children unsupervised. Despite repeated opportunities, the mother failed to demonstrate sufficient improvement to safely care for her children.The mother also proposed that her own mother or aunt should be appointed as permanency guardians for the children. However, the court found that neither individual was suitable for this role due to their loyalties to the mother and lack of objectivity regarding her addiction and reckless behavior. As such, the court determined that adoption was in the children's best interests.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court noted that the attorney had adequately presented the mother's case and had advocated for the possibility of a familial permanency guardianship. The court concluded that the mother's claim of ineffective assistance did not meet the threshold for a prima facie case, as there was no evidence of serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention from her attorney, nor was there any indication that the outcome of the trial was unjust. Consequently, the decision to terminate the mother's parental rights was upheld. View "In re Children of Shannevia Y." on Justia Law

In this case, Cynthia Jones was convicted of malice murder and related crimes in connection to the shooting death of her husband, Kenneth Jones. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed her conviction. Cynthia appealed her conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction on self-defense. The court assumed, without deciding, that there was slight evidence of self-defense and that the trial court may have erred in declining to instruct the jury on self-defense. However, the court held that even if there was such an error, it was harmless. The court explained that a nonconstitutional instructional error is harmless if it is highly probable that the jury would have reached the same verdict even if the trial court had given the instruction. After examining the evidence presented at trial, the court concluded that it was highly probable that the jury would have reached the same verdict even if the trial court had given the self-defense instruction. The court found the evidence supporting Cynthia's claim of self-defense was weak, as there was no evidence that Kenneth wielded a weapon on the night of the shooting or that Cynthia believed it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself. Therefore, Cynthia failed to show that the trial court's assumed error in declining to provide a self-defense instruction contributed to the jury's verdict. View "JONES v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts to terminate a mother's parental rights due to her failure to appear for the final day of a multiple-day termination of parental rights trial. The mother, identified as S.T., had argued that the district court violated her procedural due process rights by refusing to reschedule the trial to allow her to testify, offer additional witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses. However, the Supreme Court found that S.T. failed to demonstrate that the outcome of the trial was materially affected by her absence. The Supreme Court noted that although S.T.'s absence was troubling, the district court's refusal to continue or reschedule the hearing did not automatically violate due process. The court concluded that S.T. did not make a sufficient case that her testimony or that of her proposed witnesses would have materially affected the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the court upheld the termination of S.T.'s parental rights. View "In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: G.A.H. and S.T., Parents" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska dealt with an appeal against the termination of parental rights of two parents, Elena F. and Ronan F., by the State of Alaska, Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) had removed the two Indian children from their parents' home due to reported domestic violence and later terminated both parents' rights after two years. The parents appealed, arguing that OCS failed to make active efforts to reunify the family.The court found that the OCS made active efforts to reunify Elena with her children even in light of her serious mental illness, substance abuse, and her increasingly violent threats and behavior. As such, the court affirmed the termination of Elena's parental rights.However, the court found that the OCS did not make active efforts to reunify Ronan with his children. The court noted that there was no evidence that two out of three caseworkers assigned to Ronan made any efforts toward his reunification with his children. Therefore, the court reversed the termination of Ronan's parental rights. View "Ronan F. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law