Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition precluding the circuit court from enforcing its September 30, 2022 order denying the Delaware Tribe of Indians' motion to transfer the underlying abuse and neglect proceedings to the District Court of the Delaware Tribe pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901 to -1963, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to transfer this action to the tribal court.The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) filed a second amended abuse and neglect petition alleging that Father abandoned I.R. Father, who claimed to be a member of the Tribe, later indicated his desire to voluntarily relinquish his parental rights. The Tribe successfully moved to intervene in the proceedings, after which the court concluded that the ICWA was not applicable to these proceedings. The court thus denied the Tribe's motion to transfer this action to the tribal court. This petition seeking a writ of prohibition followed. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in determining that the ICWA was inapplicable to this case; and (2) clearly erred in determining that good cause existed to deny transfer of this matter to the tribal court. View "State ex rel. Del. Tribe of Indians v. Honorable Nowicki-Eldridge" on Justia Law

In this divorce proceeding, the Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the trial court granting Father the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of the couple's four children, holding that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an interview of the parties' thirteen-year-old daughter, M.N., and the error was harmful.Under Tex. Fam. Code 153.009(a) parents in a divorce or custody proceeding may request either an interview of the children by the judge or a jury trial but not both. Mother demanded a jury trial but later withdrew her demand to take advance of section 153.009(a)'s mandate that the trial court interview M.N. The court, however, declined to conduct the interview on the ground that Mother had not filed a written motion. In the final divorce decree the parties were appointed joint managing conservators of the children and Father was granted the right to determined the children's primary residence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred by declining to undertake its mandatory obligation to interview M.N.; and (2) the error was not harmless because it resulted in the loss of a jury trial on disputed fact questions. View "In re J.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court finding that Mother failed to comply with her service plan and that termination of Mother's rights was in her children's best interest, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by legally sufficient evidence.Mother's parental rights were terminated pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code 161.001(b)(1)(O), under which termination may be ordered if the parent as failed to comply with a court-ordered service plan "as a result of the child's removal from the parent...for the abuse or neglect of the child." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings that Mother's acts and omissions, which rendered her an unfit parent, were within the statutory definition of "abuse or neglect." View "In re A.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the circuit court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father after issuing a ruling adjudicating them as abusive and neglectful, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.The conduct leading to the subject abuse and neglect petition occurred while a Pennsylvania family was at a relative's home in West Virginia. The circuit court exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and temporarily removed the children from the care of their parents. The circuit court adjudicated Parents as abusive and neglectful before contacting Parents' home state of Pennsylvania about jurisdiction. The circuit court entered the adjudicatory order after Pennsylvania declined jurisdiction. The court then entered its order terminating Parents' parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding that the limitations of the circuit court's temporary emergency jurisdiction did not permit it to entertain an adjudication of the abuse and neglect petition unless and until Pennsylvania declined jurisdiction. View "In re A.T.-1" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court denying Petitioners' motion to intervene in this abuse and neglect case involving their niece, G.G., holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion.The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources instituted an abuse and neglect proceeding against G.G.'s mother and father. Ultimately, G.G.'s biological father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights, and G.G.'s mother's parental rights were involuntarily terminated after a hearing. Thereafter, Respondents, G.G.'s foster parents, filed a motion to intervene in the abuse and neglect proceedings seeking to adopt G.G. Petitioners then filed their motion to intervene, seeking permanent placement of G.G. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion and denied Petitioners' motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis to set aside the circuit court's determination. View "In re G.G." on Justia Law

Audrey Charlton appealed a magistrate court’s judgment modifying the residential custody of the parties’ minor children to give their father, Russell Pottenger, primary physical custody and awarding Charlton physical custody on alternating weekends during the school year and one-half of each summer vacation. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded the magistrate court erred when it failed to address Charlton’s primary ground for modification in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, the Court vacated the magistrate court’s judgment modifying custody and its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pottenger v. Charlton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals dismissing as untimely Mother's appeal from the juvenile court's termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father, holding that Mother's time to file a notice of appeal was extended in this case.After a hearing, the juvenile court terminated entered an order terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights to their two children. Father timely filed his notice of appeal, but the court of appeals determined that Mother's appeal was not filed within fifteen days of the termination order, as required by Utah R. App. P. 52(a). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Utah R. App. P. 52(c), together with Father's appeal, extended Mother's time to file a notice of appeal. View "In re C.D.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's order finding Mother in contempt and modifying the underlying divorce decree, holding that the district court's finding of contempt must be reversed.The parties' divorce decree granted joint custody of the parties' two children. Mother later filed a petition to modify custody, seeking sole legal and primary residential custody of the children. Father responded with his own petition to modify custody. Father also sought to hold Mother in contempt. The district court (1) found Mother in contempt for unreasonably withholding visitation, unreasonably denying Father's requests to travel with the children, and failing to return Father's medical records; and (2) found that modification of the decree was justified. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion when it determined that clear and convincing evidence supporting finding Mother in contempt of court because the decree was ambiguous; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the decree to clarify its travel and visitation provisions; and (3) Mother was not entitled to relief on her remaining claims of error. View "Evans v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental and custodial rights due to her substance abuse problem, holding that the circuit court did not err in terminating Mother's rights and in declining to extend her improvement period or grant an additional, post-dispositional improvement period.After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court denied Mother's motion for a post-dispositional improvement period and terminated her parental and custodial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) refusing to extend Mother's post-adjudicatory improvement period; (2) denying Mother's motion for a post-dispositional improvement period; and (3) terminating Mother's parental and custodial rights. View "In re H.D." on Justia Law

Robin J. appealed the denial of her request to renew a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Michael M., the father of their two children. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court misapplied the law in denying Robin’s renewal request, and that Robin established a reasonable apprehension of future abuse. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to grant the renewal request and decide whether the DVRO should be renewed for five or more years, or permanently. View "Michael M. v. Robin J." on Justia Law