Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A petitioner filed for a declaration of invalidity of marriage, asserting that the respondent’s consent to the marriage had been induced by duress and fraud. The petition was drafted by the respondent but left unsigned, as she ultimately decided not to pursue it. The petitioner found the paperwork and filed it without the respondent’s knowledge or consent. The respondent was served with the unsigned petition and a consent form, but was not served with a summons or an automatic economic restraining order as required by statute. She did not respond to the petition or attend any hearings, later claiming she was unaware of the proceedings. The petitioner attested to the statements in the petition and consented to the entry of a decree of invalidity.The Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final invalidity decree, concluding that the marriage was irretrievably broken due to serious marital discord and no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The respondent appealed, arguing that she never signed the petition and that the court failed to consider her interests. The petitioner did not oppose the appeal and agreed that the district court’s judgment should be overruled.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in declaring the marriage invalid because it failed to make findings under the statutory grounds for invalidity and instead relied solely on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, which is not relevant to a declaration of invalidity. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s findings, conclusions, and decree of invalidity, and remanded with instructions to strike the unsigned petition and dismiss the cause. View "In re Marriage of Anderson" on Justia Law

The case concerns a family in Evanston, Wyoming, where the State intervened after a five-day-old infant, SP, was hospitalized with a cerebral hemorrhage. Law enforcement took SP and three other minor children into protective custody, suspecting abuse or neglect by their parents, particularly focusing on the father, who is hearing-impaired and sometimes requires an ASL interpreter. The State filed a petition alleging abuse, and both parents initially denied the allegations. The children were placed in the custody of the Department of Family Services, and a permanency plan for family reunification with the mother was adopted.The District Court of Uinta County held several hearings, ensuring the father had access to an interpreter and legal counsel. During the proceedings, concerns about the father’s competency arose, but no formal motion for a competency evaluation was made. The father ultimately stipulated to the adjudication of neglect after being advised of his rights and confirming his understanding and voluntariness. Later, the father’s counsel sought to withdraw, citing communication difficulties, but the court denied the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances. When the father was incarcerated out of state, the court attempted to facilitate his participation in the disposition hearing, but he could only appear by phone, which was ineffective due to his hearing impairment. The court proceeded, denied the father’s motion to dismiss, and ordered the children to remain in state custody.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The Court held that deficiencies in the neglect petition did not deprive the juvenile court of subject matter jurisdiction, that a parent in neglect proceedings does not have a due process right to a competency evaluation, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel’s withdrawal. The Court also found no due process violation in proceeding with the disposition hearing without the father’s physical presence, given the circumstances and his representation by counsel. View "In the Interest of SP v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the division of retirement benefits following the divorce of William S. Perreira and Gertrude B. Perreira (now Gertrude B. Haia). In 1990, the Family Court of the Third Circuit awarded Gertrude a percentage of William’s State of Hawai‘i Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) benefits, with payments to begin when William became eligible to retire. William qualified for retirement in 1999, but Gertrude did not receive payments. In 2008, she moved to enforce the division order. The family court granted her motion in 2012, awarding her 31% of William’s pension as valued at his retirement eligibility date. Gertrude later sought further relief in 2017, alleging William failed to disclose information and make payments, resulting in a 2019 order awarding her interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.William appealed the 2019 orders to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), arguing that Gertrude’s 2008 motion was barred by the ten-year statute of limitations under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-5. While the appeal was pending, Gertrude moved for entry of a Hawai‘i Domestic Relations Order (HiDRO) under HRS § 88-93.5, which the family court granted in 2021, directing ERS to pay her William’s entire monthly pension until her award was satisfied. William appealed the HiDRO order, contending that the statute could not be applied retroactively.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that Gertrude’s 2008 motion to enforce was not time-barred, as her right to enforce the judgment accrued when William became eligible to retire in 1999. The court further held that the application of HRS § 88-93.5 to effectuate the HiDRO was not an ex post facto violation, as the statute is civil and merely enforces existing rights. The ICA’s judgment was affirmed. View "Perreira v. Perreira" on Justia Law

Two children, born in Utah in 2016 and 2018 to parents who met as teenagers and struggled with substance abuse, moved with their mother and maternal grandparents to Maui in December 2019. The father relocated to Maui a few months later. Both parents had periods of sobriety and relapse, and the children were exposed to instability, including domestic violence involving the mother’s boyfriend. In 2021, the mother sought sole custody, alleging the father sexually abused the children. The father denied the allegations and sought sole custody and permission to relocate the children to Utah.The Family Court of the Second Circuit held a bench trial, during which the mother attempted to introduce testimony from fact and expert witnesses regarding the credibility of the children’s disclosures of abuse, as well as hearsay evidence about those disclosures. The court excluded this testimony, relying on State v. Batangan, which prohibits expert or lay testimony on the credibility of child sexual abuse victims. The court also excluded certain hearsay evidence, finding the mother failed to meet the requirements for exceptions under the Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence. After considering the statutory best interest factors, the court awarded the father sole legal and physical custody, allowed him to relocate the children to Utah, and granted the mother supervised visitation. The court found no confirmed sexual abuse by the father and determined the mother had misused the protection from abuse process.The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s decision. The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi also affirmed, holding that the family court properly excluded testimony regarding the children’s credibility, correctly applied evidentiary rules, and did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody and approving relocation. The court found the family court’s findings were supported by sufficient evidence and that the best interests of the children were served by the custody and relocation order. View "KP v. EM." on Justia Law

A married couple with three children sought dissolution of their marriage after nearly two decades together. The parties’ relationship had become highly contentious, with each parent seeking custody of the children and making allegations about the other’s parenting, mental health, and conduct. During the proceedings, a temporary protection order was issued, later modified, and the parties alternated between joint and sole custody arrangements for their children. At trial, both sides presented extensive evidence, including testimony from psychologists, therapists, family members, and friends, regarding the children’s best interests, the parents’ mental health, and allegations of alienation and abuse.The District Court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, conducted a bench trial and ultimately dissolved the marriage. The court awarded joint legal custody but granted primary physical custody and final decision-making authority over medical, educational, and religious matters to the mother. The court found that, while both parents had strengths and weaknesses, the mother generally acted in the children’s best interests, and the father’s actions had contributed to alienation of the children from their mother. The court also divided the marital estate, awarding the mother the marital home and the father a cabin, and ordered the father to pay alimony, a portion of the children’s extracurricular expenses, and attorney fees. Both parties filed post-trial motions, resulting in minor amendments to the decree.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, applying an abuse of discretion standard. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the custody determination, allocation of extracurricular expenses, division of property, alimony, and attorney fee awards were all within the trial court’s discretion and supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s order in all respects. View "Scott v. Scott" on Justia Law

Gregory D. is the father of X.D., a child born in 2014. In 2015, Gregory D. kidnapped X.D. and her mother, assaulted the mother, and endangered X.D., leading to a prior dependency proceeding in which the mother was granted full custody and the father was allowed monitored visits, though he rarely exercised them. In December 2023, X.D.’s mother was killed during a violent incident, leaving X.D. without a parent to care for her. At that time, Gregory D. was incarcerated and had not been in contact with X.D. for years. X.D. was placed with her maternal grandmother.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County seeking dependency jurisdiction over X.D. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), citing the absence of a parent able to provide care. After Gregory D.’s whereabouts were discovered, he suggested his mother and brother as possible caregivers. The Department investigated and found the paternal grandmother’s home unsuitable due to her health and living conditions, and the paternal uncle was unresponsive and already caring for two young children. X.D. expressed fear of her father and no interest in living with his relatives.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (g), is appropriate when an incarcerated parent cannot arrange for suitable, reliable, or appropriate care for the child, even if the parent suggests relatives who are unwilling or unable to provide such care. The court affirmed the juvenile court’s order exerting dependency jurisdiction over X.D. and ordering reunification services for Gregory D. View "In re X.D." on Justia Law

Two women were married, divorced, and later remarried. During their relationship, one partner conceived two children using sperm donors, and both women jointly raised the children. After their separation, the biological mother filed for dissolution of marriage, initially stating there were no children of the marriage. The other partner countered, asserting that both children were part of the marriage and sought a parenting plan, later petitioning for a determination of parentage under Montana’s presumptive parentage statute. Both parties presented evidence at trial regarding their respective roles in the children’s lives, with testimony from family, friends, and professionals about their parenting and the children’s best interests.The District Court of the Second Judicial District, Butte-Silver Bow County, held a bench trial and, after hearing evidence, amended the pleadings to consider whether the non-biological parent could be awarded a parental interest under Montana’s third-party parental interest statute (§ 40-4-228, MCA). The court found that both parties had impliedly consented to try this issue, as evidence relevant to the statute was presented without objection. The District Court concluded that the non-biological parent had established a child-parent relationship, that the biological mother had engaged in conduct contrary to the parent-child relationship, and that it was in the children’s best interests to continue their relationship with the non-biological parent. The court entered a parenting plan accordingly.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in amending the pleadings to conform to the evidence and properly awarded a third-party parental interest under § 40-4-228, MCA. The Supreme Court found the District Court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the statutory requirements for awarding a third-party parental interest were met. View "In re Marriage of Rehbein and Paddock" on Justia Law

A child was removed from her parents’ care shortly after birth due to concerns about neglect. The mother, who has cognitive disabilities, was unable to provide basic care, resulting in the child’s hospitalization for weight loss. The father, who also has an intellectual disability, did not live with the mother and child and was unable to take custody when the child was discharged from the hospital. Both parents were found responsible for neglect, and the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) was awarded legal custody. The parents were ordered to meet certain conditions, including maintaining safe housing, engaging with mental health providers, and participating in parenting education, while DCYF was required to provide supportive services.The Circuit Court–Concord Family Division held periodic review hearings, finding the parents in only partial compliance with the orders. The mother struggled to care for the child outside of supervised settings and failed to secure appropriate housing. The father also lacked housing and did not fully engage with required services. After twelve months, the court determined that neither parent had corrected the conditions leading to the neglect finding and established adoption as the permanency plan. DCYF then petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights. The trial court granted the petitions, finding that DCYF made reasonable efforts to assist both parents and that termination was in the child’s best interest.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It held that non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cannot be asserted as a defense in a termination of parental rights proceeding. The court also found that the evidence supported the trial court’s findings regarding the mother’s failure to correct the neglect conditions, DCYF’s reasonable efforts, and the determination that termination was in the child’s best interest. The orders terminating parental rights were affirmed. View "In re K.O." on Justia Law

After a divorce in 2021, the parties were subject to separate court orders regarding custody and visitation of their minor child, DM. The mother was granted primary custody, with a planned 15-month transition to shared custody, which required reunification therapy for the father and DM. However, shared custody was never achieved, and DM remained in the mother’s primary care. In 2023, the mother petitioned to modify custody, visitation, and child support, arguing that the father had abandoned efforts to communicate with DM and that shared custody was not feasible due to his residence in Arizona. She also sought to adjust child support to reflect her continued primary custody.The District Court of Teton County held a bench trial to consider the mother’s petition. The court found that the circumstances had not materially changed since the original custody order, even though the order was not being followed. The court determined that DM’s welfare was unchanged, noting that DM continued to excel academically and socially, and that the estrangement between father and son persisted as it had at the time of the divorce. The court also found that the mother had not presented evidence of new efforts to foster the father-son relationship or that her relocation had impacted DM’s welfare. Consequently, the court denied the petition for modification of custody and child support.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case for abuse of discretion. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no material change of circumstances affecting the child’s welfare. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the failure to comply with the custody order did not, in this instance, constitute a material change warranting modification. View "Cornell v. Mecartney" on Justia Law

A married couple with two children entered into a legal separation after signing a settlement agreement that addressed property division, child custody and support, and alimony. The agreement was incorporated into a legal separation decree by the District Court for Scotts Bluff County, which found the agreement fair and not unconscionable. The husband did not appeal this decree. Several months later, the wife filed for dissolution of marriage, and both parties again signed a settlement agreement, which referenced the prior separation decree as resolving all substantive issues. After the husband discovered an undisclosed retirement account, the parties agreed to modify the equalization payment to the wife, and the court approved this modification.The first dissolution decree was entered before the statutory 60-day waiting period had elapsed, rendering it void. The wife moved for a new dissolution decree, and the court entered an operative dissolution decree after the waiting period, incorporating the prior agreements and the modified equalization payment. The husband, now represented by counsel, sought to vacate both the separation and dissolution decrees, arguing the separation decree was void for lack of a required written certification that the parties would live separate and apart, and that the agreements were unconscionable. He also argued that the dissolution decree was barred by issue preclusion and that the settlement agreements should be set aside.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the absence of a written certification under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-361.01 was not a jurisdictional defect and did not render the separation decree void. The court further held that the separation decree was a final, appealable order, and because it was not timely appealed, its terms could not be collaterally attacked except under limited circumstances such as fraud or gross inequity, which were not present. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s approval of the settlement agreements and affirmed the judgment. View "Benda v. Sole" on Justia Law