Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A divorced couple with three minor children, who reside full-time with their mother, entered into a child-support agreement as part of their divorce proceedings. The agreement, incorporated into a final order, calculated child support using a formula established in a prior case, which is applied when the parents’ combined adjusted gross income exceeds $240,000. Over time, both parties filed motions seeking to modify child support, compel discovery, and request sanctions, primarily due to alleged changes in income and discovery disputes. The father sought a reduction in support based on his income, while the mother sought enforcement and additional relief, including attorney’s fees and sanctions.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held hearings, issued a temporary reduction in the father’s support obligation, and ultimately entered a permanent order requiring him to pay $3,817.28 per month. The court used the Holland formula to determine the support amount, declined to “gross up” the father’s nontaxable veteran’s benefit for tax purposes, and excluded a $6,000 extraordinary medical expense from the calculation due to insufficient evidence. The court also denied the mother’s requests for attorney’s fees and sanctions, often without detailed explanation.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s use of the Holland formula, holding that it was within the court’s discretion for high-income cases. However, the appellate court vacated the permanent support order and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the trial court erred by not grossing up the father’s nontaxable veteran’s benefit as required by statute, by not adequately considering the extraordinary medical expense, and by failing to properly address the mother’s requests for attorney’s fees and sanctions. The case was remanded for the trial court to address these issues in accordance with the appellate court’s guidance. View "Hershey v. Hershey" on Justia Law

A child, J.B., was removed from her mother’s care in 2015 after reports of drug use by the mother. The Department of Public Health and Human Services initially dismissed its petition in 2018 after the father completed a treatment plan and J.B. was cared for by her paternal grandmother. In 2021, J.B. was again removed, this time from her paternal grandmother’s home due to allegations of sexual abuse by an uncle. Over the next several years, J.B. experienced multiple placements, including with relatives and in therapeutic foster care, while the Department attempted to provide services and reunification efforts. The mother’s engagement with the Department and her appointed counsel was sporadic, and she struggled with substance abuse and unstable living conditions.The Seventeenth Judicial District Court adjudicated J.B. as a youth in need of care and approved a treatment plan for the mother, who failed to comply with its requirements. The Fort Belknap Indian Community, recognizing J.B. as an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), moved to transfer the case to tribal court. The father objected to the transfer, and the District Court denied the motion. The court later terminated both parents’ rights, finding that the Department made active efforts to reunify the family and that continued custody by the mother would likely result in serious harm to J.B. The mother appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, improper denial of the transfer to tribal court, and insufficient evidence for termination.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decisions. It held that under ICWA, either parent’s objection to transfer to tribal court is an absolute bar, and the father’s written objection was sufficient. The Court found no ineffective assistance of counsel, as the mother’s lack of engagement prevented effective advocacy. Finally, the Court concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the mother’s parental rights, as the statutory and ICWA requirements were met by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Matter of J.B., YINC" on Justia Law

Erica Hall and Nicholas Houser married in 2012 and have one minor child, C.H., born in 2018. In 2020, both parties sought an absolute divorce. On the trial day, they presented agreements to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, including one to waive child support and arrears. The court requested justification for this waiver, but the parties only argued their fitness as parents and their constitutional rights. The court found the waiver in the parents' best interest, not the child's, and ordered Mr. Houser to pay child support and arrears to Ms. Hall, who had primary custody of C.H.The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court's decision, rejecting the parents' agreement regarding child support and upholding the child support and arrears order. Both parties then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that parents cannot waive the issue of child support because it is a legal obligation, and the right to receive support belongs to the child, not the parents. The court also held that a parent's fundamental right to determine the care, custody, and control of their children does not include waiving child support, as it is a parental obligation. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the parents' agreement to waive child support, as the parties failed to provide sufficient justification for the waiver. The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court, maintaining the child support and arrears order. View "In re: Marriage of Houser" on Justia Law

A couple divorced, and the superior court awarded them joint legal custody of their minor child, with primary physical custody to the mother. The court also divided the couple’s marital estate. The father, representing himself, appealed, arguing that the division of the marital estate was inequitable. He claimed errors in the court’s determinations, including not crediting him for post-separation payments, not allowing him to apply for the child’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), not allowing him to claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes, and its custody decision.The superior court held a one-day trial by videoconference, where both parties testified. The court issued a decree of divorce and findings of fact and conclusions of law, awarding joint legal custody to both parties and primary physical custody to the mother. The court divided the proceeds from the sale of the marital home, taking into account the father’s child support arrearage and an escrow shortage. The court also divided the couple’s vehicles and assigned debts based on testimony and the mother’s spreadsheet. The court ordered that the mother would be responsible for the child’s PFD and could claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes. The court ordered that the father’s 401(k) be divided equitably according to the mother’s spreadsheet.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. It vacated the superior court’s division of the marital estate, finding that the court’s treatment of the father’s 401(k) was unclear and lacked clarifying findings. It also found legal error in the court’s failure to address post-separation payments when dividing the marital estate. The court remanded for further proceedings on these issues. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the superior court’s decisions, including the custody award and the decisions regarding the child’s PFD and tax dependency. View "Wolffe v. Wolffe" on Justia Law

A nine-year-old boy lifted his grandmother, causing her to fall and suffer pain. The boy’s father, in response, pushed the boy to the ground to show him "how it felt to be Grandma." The boy’s mother sought a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against the father on the boy’s behalf. The superior court granted the order, finding that the father had assaulted the boy and rejected the father's argument that the push was reasonable parental discipline.The superior court found that the father's actions amounted to an assault and were not reasonable corporal discipline. The court noted that the father should have calmed down and had a mature conversation with his son instead of pushing him to the ground. The court granted a long-term DVPO against the father. The father moved for reconsideration, arguing insufficient evidence of assault and permissible corporal discipline. The court denied reconsideration.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the superior court’s finding of assault, as the father’s actions caused the boy physical pain and were reckless. The court also affirmed the superior court’s rejection of the reasonable corporal discipline defense, finding that the father’s actions were not reasonable or appropriate and were motivated by retribution rather than a desire to promote the child’s welfare. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment. View "Peter R. v. B.M.R." on Justia Law

A mother and father, both residing in Nome, Alaska, disputed custody of their three children. The mother sought to modify the existing custody arrangement and move with the children to Palmer, where she and her new husband had purchased a home. The father opposed the move. Following a hearing, the superior court awarded primary physical custody and sole legal custody of the children to the father. The mother appealed.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Second Judicial District, found that the mother's relocation to Palmer constituted a substantial change in circumstances, necessitating a modification of the custody arrangement. The court awarded primary physical custody to the father, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the children's geographic stability in Nome. The court also awarded sole legal custody to the father, reasoning that joint legal custody only works when parents' decisions are consistent nearly all the time, which it found was not the case here.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and found that the superior court erred by not conducting the required symmetrical analysis when one parent intends to relocate a significant distance. The court also failed to consider the children's relational stability in determining physical custody. The Supreme Court held that the superior court must conduct a symmetrical analysis, considering the consequences of the move with or without the children, and must also consider relational stability, not just geographic stability. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the superior court's award of sole legal custody to the father was unsupported by the record and based on an incorrect legal standard. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the award of primary physical custody for the superior court to conduct the required analyses and reversed the award of sole legal custody, maintaining joint legal custody between the parents. View "Outwater v. Ahmasuk" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) petitioned the Lenawee Circuit Court, Family Division, to take jurisdiction over two minor children, CB and ME, and terminate the parental rights of their mother after CB alleged sexual abuse by two of the mother's male friends. CB claimed the mother was aware of the abuse and allowed it in exchange for drugs. The court authorized the petition, suspended the mother's parenting time, and ordered the children to remain with their father. At the combined adjudication and termination hearing, CB testified about the abuse, and the court found her testimony credible, concluding that grounds for adjudication and termination existed.The trial court terminated the mother's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), and (j), finding that termination was in the children's best interests. The mother appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that aggravated circumstances were not present under MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii) because the mother was not the perpetrator of the criminal sexual conduct. The court also found that the trial court erred by not advising the mother of her right to appeal the removal order.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a), DHHS is not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family when there is a judicial determination of aggravated circumstances as provided in MCL 722.638(1) and (2). The court concluded that the mother subjected CB to aggravated circumstances by facilitating criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, even though she did not personally commit the act. The court also found that the trial court's failure to advise the mother of her right to appeal the removal order was plain error but did not affect her substantial rights. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's order terminating the mother's parental rights. View "In Re Barber/Espinoza Minors" on Justia Law

Kenneth H. Kofler and Billee K. Reis share a minor child, A.V.R. In 2017, Kofler filed a Petition to Establish Parenting Plan in Flathead County District Court, Montana. At that time, Kofler lived in Vancouver, Washington, and Reis and A.V.R. lived in Kalispell, Montana. The court issued a final parenting plan in December 2018, which allowed Kofler to gradually increase his parenting time. In 2019, Kofler requested an amendment to the plan due to his inability to move to Kalispell. Subsequent allegations of abuse by Reis led to a criminal investigation, which did not result in charges. The court issued an interim parenting plan in November 2022, requiring reunification therapy for Kofler and A.V.R.Reis relocated to North Carolina without permission and filed for emergency custody there. The North Carolina court initially granted her request but later dismissed the action after communication with the Montana court, which refused to relinquish jurisdiction. The Montana District Court reaffirmed its jurisdiction and ordered reunification therapy. Reis appealed the court's refusal to transfer jurisdiction and its award of attorney’s fees to Kofler.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court's decision to retain jurisdiction, citing the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The court found that Montana retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction as there was no pending proceeding in another state. The court also noted that the North Carolina court could not accept jurisdiction while the Montana proceeding was active.However, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the District Court's award of attorney’s fees to Kofler, finding no statutory or contractual basis for such an award. The court emphasized that attorney’s fees are generally not recoverable without specific legal authority. View "In re Parenting of A.V.R." on Justia Law

Justin J. (Father) appealed a jurisdiction finding and disposition order declaring his children, Hunter V. and B.V., dependents of the juvenile court. The court sustained a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j), alleging the children's mother had a history of substance abuse and left the children without proper care. The petition also alleged Father had an extensive criminal history and was incarcerated, which placed the children at risk.The Los Angeles County Superior Court held a detention hearing where neither parent was present. The court detained the children and ordered monitored visitation for both parents. At the jurisdiction hearing, the court amended the petition to allege Father was unable to parent due to his incarceration and inability to make an appropriate plan for the children. The court sustained the amended allegations and proceeded with the disposition hearing, declaring the children dependents of the court and ordering reunification services for both parents.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court found that the juvenile court violated Father's due process rights by failing to provide notice of the amended allegations, which were based on a different set of facts and legal theory from the initial petition. The court also violated Father's statutory right to be present at the jurisdiction hearing, as required by Penal Code section 2625, subdivision (d). The appellate court applied the Chapman standard for federal constitutional error and concluded the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court reversed the jurisdiction finding and disposition order as to Father and remanded the case for further proceedings with Father present unless he waives his right to be present. View "In re Hunter V." on Justia Law

Deborah A. Chatfield filed for divorce from Frederick H. Chatfield Jr. on July 14, 2021. Frederick initially had legal representation, but his attorney withdrew in December 2021, leaving him to represent himself. A final hearing was held on August 23, 2024, which Frederick did not attend. The court granted the divorce and classified certain real estate in Rockport as marital property, ordering its sale. Frederick did not appeal the divorce judgment or request further findings of fact.Frederick later retained counsel and filed a motion for relief from judgment under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b), arguing that the property was nonmarital, the court lacked jurisdiction, and Deborah's belief that the property was marital was a mistake. The District Court (Rockland) denied the motion, finding that Frederick had not protected his interests during the original proceedings and had not provided justification for his absence. The court also found no credible evidence to support Frederick's claims.The Estate of Frederick H. Chatfield Jr. appealed the denial to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, considering whether the lower court's findings were supported by the record, whether the court understood the applicable law, and whether the court's decisions were reasonable. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion or clear error. The court noted that Frederick failed to protect his interests by not attending the hearing, not filing for further findings, and not appealing the original judgment. The court also found that the lower court had jurisdiction over the property and that Frederick did not meet the burden of proof required for relief under Rule 60(b). View "Chatfield v. Estate of Chatfield" on Justia Law