Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Pat Doe and Jarrod Burnham each filed complaints for protection from abuse against each other in December 2021. Doe's complaint was transferred to Portland for a consolidated hearing, where the court found that Burnham had abused Doe and granted her a two-year protection order effective until January 14, 2024. On January 4, 2024, Doe attempted to file a motion to extend the protection order in Bangor but was informed it needed to be filed in Portland. She mailed the motion on January 13, 2024, but it never arrived due to insufficient postage. Doe learned the order had not been extended on January 17, 2024, and filed a new protection from abuse action in Bangor.The District Court in Portland denied Doe's motion to extend the protection order, concluding it could not extend an expired order. Doe's motion for reconsideration was also denied, with the court finding that her failure to file on time was not excusable neglect and that the statute did not permit extending an expired order. Doe then filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing excusable neglect, which was also denied. The court stated that excusable neglect under M.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) did not apply to statutory deadlines.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decisions, holding that 19-A M.R.S. § 4111(1) unambiguously prohibits extending an expired protection order. The court also held that a motion for relief from judgment cannot be used to circumvent statutory authority, and thus the trial court did not err in denying Doe's motion for relief from judgment. View "Doe v. Burnham" on Justia Law

Michaela Boland filed for divorce in October 2019. In September 2022, the parties reached a settlement agreement regarding the economic issues of their divorce, which was accepted by the court. The agreement included a provision for Nicholas Belair to transfer $50,000 annually to Michaela for five years, secured by a promissory note from Nicholas's father, Roland Belair. However, Roland later reneged on his commitment to fund the payments, leading Michaela to file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.The District Court (Tice, J.) denied Michaela's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, finding that the agreement was based on a material mistake of fact and was therefore unenforceable. The court concluded that Nicholas could not make the payments without his father's assistance and set the matter for trial. Michaela appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory. The court (D. Driscoll, J.) later held a bench trial and determined that Nicholas's interest in a real estate company was nonmarital property, leading to a final divorce judgment.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and held that the settlement agreement was enforceable. The court found that all requirements for a binding settlement agreement were met, as the parties had reported the agreement to the court, read its terms into the record, and expressed clear consent. The court concluded that there was no mistake of fact at the time the agreement was reached, as Roland had agreed to fund the payments. The court vacated the order denying Michaela's motion to enforce, vacated the divorce judgment, and remanded for incorporation of the settlement agreement into a divorce judgment. View "Boland v. Belair" on Justia Law

This case involves the termination of parental rights and an adoption proceeding. Jane Doe 1 ("Mother") and John Doe ("Father") had a child out of wedlock. Approximately eight months after the child's birth, Mother and her fiancé filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights and allow the fiancé to adopt the child. Mother did not serve the petition on Father, and he did not participate in the proceedings. The magistrate court terminated Father's parental rights and granted the adoption. Father later filed two motions to set aside the judgment, arguing that his due process rights were violated due to lack of notice. This appeal concerns Father's second motion.The magistrate court denied Father's second motion, finding it barred by res judicata. The district court disagreed, reversed the magistrate court's order, and remanded the matter for the magistrate court to consider the motion on its merits. Mother appealed, arguing that Father's motion was barred by procedural doctrines, including res judicata and waiver.The Supreme Court of Idaho held that Father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion alleged a fundamental error that deprived him of his right to procedural due process, which in turn violated his fundamental constitutional right to raise his child. The Court concluded that the fundamental error doctrine applies to create an exception to the doctrines of res judicata and waiver. The Court affirmed the district court's decision and remanded the matter to the magistrate court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion was timely and, if so, whether the termination and adoption judgment is void. The Court also awarded partial attorney fees to Father for defending against certain arguments raised by Mother on appeal. View "Doe v. Doe" on Justia Law

Petitioner mother C.V. appealed the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the reasons for termination were instances of noncompliance known to the Department of Human Services (DHS) throughout the proceedings but not raised until disposition. Specifically, Petitioner was directed to participate in mental health counseling but refused, and there were two isolated incidents of improper contact with the child. Despite these issues, DHS advised the court at various hearings that Petitioner was compliant and doing well with her improvement period. Petitioner underwent a psychological evaluation, which recommended intensive psychotherapy and medication management. Following this report, DHS sought termination of her parental rights.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County initially granted Petitioner an improvement period, during which she was reported to be compliant with services. However, after the psychological evaluation, DHS changed its position and sought termination based on her failure to seek mental health treatment and visitation violations. The circuit court terminated Petitioner’s parental rights, finding that she had not met her burden of proof and had not addressed her mental health issues.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court had impermissibly shifted the burden of proof onto Petitioner. The court emphasized that DHS always has the burden of proof in abuse and neglect cases and must provide clear and convincing evidence to support termination of parental rights. The court vacated the dispositional order and remanded the case for a new dispositional hearing, allowing for further exploration of Petitioner’s mental health treatment and current status. View "In re K.V." on Justia Law

In 2023, Basin Authority, a Wyoming Child Support Agency, notified Rodolfo P. Munoz that he was in arrears on his child support obligation and began garnishing his social security. Mr. Munoz filed a complaint against the State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS), and some of its employees, as well as Basin Authority and several of its employees. He alleged breach of contract and violations of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Mr. Munoz’s complaint after a hearing.The district court of Big Horn County granted the motions to dismiss filed by the State Defendants and the Basin Authority Defendants. The court found that Mr. Munoz had not made allegations against the State Defendants and that they were not subject to suit under § 1983 because they are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute. The court also found that a breach of contract claim is not actionable under § 1983 and that the alleged agreement was void and unenforceable. Mr. Munoz’s objection and response to the State Defendants’ proposed order on the motion to dismiss and his motion for reconsideration were denied.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and summarily affirmed the district court’s decision. The court noted that Mr. Munoz failed to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not present cogent arguments supported by pertinent authority. The court emphasized that even pro se litigants must adhere to procedural rules and present coherent arguments. The court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate due to the deficiencies in Mr. Munoz’s brief and his failure to present relevant legal arguments. View "Munoz v. State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A mother and father, who were never married, have one child together, A.H.S., born in February 2018 in San Diego, California. The mother is from Brazil, and both she and the child are dual citizens of Brazil and the United States. The family moved to Montana in April 2020. In September 2022, the mother took the child to California without the father's consent, cutting off contact. The father filed a Verified Petition for Parenting Plan and a Motion for Ex Parte Interim Parenting Plan in Montana, which was granted, requiring the mother to return the child to Montana and surrender the child's passports.The mother attempted to get California to exercise jurisdiction by filing for a domestic violence restraining order. A UCCJEA conference was held between the California and Montana courts, resulting in the California court declining to exercise jurisdiction. The mother avoided service for several months but eventually returned the child to Montana in June 2023. The Montana District Court held hearings and issued a Final Parenting Plan in May 2024, providing for a 50/50 alternating week parenting schedule and temporarily limiting the child's travel outside Montana.The mother appealed the District Court's decisions. The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's rulings. The court held that the District Court correctly determined it had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and Montana law, as no other state had jurisdiction. The court also found that the temporary travel restriction was reasonable to ensure the child's stability and continuity of care. Finally, the court concluded that the District Court properly considered the best interest factors under Montana law, including evidence of domestic violence, and did not err in its parenting plan decision. View "In re Parenting of A.H.S." on Justia Law

The case involves a child, C.E.-1, who was found in a dangerous situation due to his parents' substance abuse. The Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition against the parents, L.F. and C.E.-2, after L.F. was found unconscious with heroin nearby, and C.E.-1 was left in her care. Both parents admitted to drug use and were granted improvement periods to address their issues. However, they failed to comply with the terms, leading the guardian ad litem to move for termination of the improvement periods.The Circuit Court of Hancock County extended the improvement periods despite the parents' noncompliance, effectively prolonging the case. The guardian ad litem objected, but the court continued the improvement periods until July 2023. The court then scheduled a dispositional hearing but instead held an ex parte meeting with all parties except the guardian ad litem. Following this meeting, the court approved a Disposition Five agreement, placing C.E.-1 in the custody of the DHS and planning for a legal guardianship with the maternal grandmother.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and found that the circuit court erred by not conducting a proper dispositional hearing and by excluding the guardian ad litem from the ex parte meeting. The court also noted that the dispositional order lacked necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's dispositional order and remanded the case for a proper dispositional hearing and entry of a new order consistent with its opinion. View "In re C.E.-1" on Justia Law

The case involves M.D., the mother of minor H.M., who appeals the termination of her parental rights by the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. The appeal centers on the alleged noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services. M.D. contends that the department failed to fulfill its duty of inquiry and adequately document its efforts regarding H.M.'s potential Native American ancestry.Initially, the department responded to a referral in April 2023, when both M.D. and newborn H.M. tested positive for drugs. H.M. was placed into protective custody. During the inquiry, M.D. reported she was adopted and unaware of her Native American ancestry, while the father mentioned possible Blackfeet tribe ancestry. The department sent notification letters to relatives, and some expressed interest in H.M.'s placement but did not confirm Native American ancestry.The Superior Court of Tuolumne County held several hearings, during which M.D. and the father were present. The court made findings that H.M. might be an Indian child and directed further inquiry. The department contacted the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes and the Blackfeet tribe. Two Cherokee tribes responded that H.M. was not eligible for membership, while the Cherokee Nation required additional information, which the department provided but received no further response.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the department and the juvenile court conducted adequate inquiries and documented their efforts sufficiently. The court held that the department's inquiry into H.M.'s potential Native American heritage was proper and that the ICWA did not apply. Consequently, the court affirmed the termination of M.D.'s parental rights. View "In re H.M." on Justia Law

Petitioner C.S. and Respondent A.F.-1 are the non-offending parents of D.S., a child involved in an abuse and neglect proceeding. The Circuit Court of Grant County held several evidentiary hearings to determine custody of D.S. and awarded equal custodial responsibility to both parents. The father argued that he was the primary caregiver and that the mother had serious mental health issues affecting her ability to parent. The mother, the child’s guardian ad litem, and the Department of Human Services contended that the mother was receiving proper treatment and could share caretaking responsibilities.The Circuit Court of Grant County found that both parents had stable employment and homes, and although the mother had mental health issues, she was seeking proper treatment and could safely parent. The court noted that the mother had expansive visitation with D.S., which was appropriate and beneficial for the child. The court also emphasized the importance of D.S. maintaining contact with his half-sibling, A.F.-2. Despite concerns about the parents' strained relationship, the court concluded that both parents had the child’s best interests at heart and ordered a transition plan for equal custody.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and applied a two-prong deferential standard of review. The court found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding equal custodial allocation. The court noted that the circuit court had considered all relevant factors, including the mother’s mental health treatment and the father’s allegations. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of meaningful contact between the child and both parents, as well as the child’s half-sibling. View "In re D.S." on Justia Law

The case involves a seventeen-year-old named M.Z., who was adjudicated as a child in need of assistance (CINA) by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County due to behavioral issues and her mother's inability to manage her. M.Z. was placed in a therapeutic youth group home and later returned to her mother's custody. The Baltimore County Department of Social Services sought to terminate the CINA case, but M.Z.'s mother objected, citing ongoing behavioral concerns and the need for additional services.The Circuit Court for Baltimore County terminated the CINA case over the mother's objection, finding that the mother could adequately care for M.Z. and that the Department had exhausted its services. The mother appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland, which dismissed the appeal, holding that the mother was not "aggrieved" by the termination since her custodial rights were restored.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case to determine whether a parent is entitled to appeal the termination of a CINA case over their objection. The court held that a parent is an "aggrieved party" entitled to appeal if they have not obtained the full relief sought in the juvenile court. The court emphasized that the CINA statute's purpose extends beyond parental rights to include the child's safety and well-being. The court found that the mother's interest in ensuring M.Z.'s safety and receiving necessary services was sufficient to make her an aggrieved party.The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve the merits of the mother's appeal. View "In re M.Z." on Justia Law