Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

C.E. (mother) appealed an order terminating her parental rights to I.E. (the child) and freeing the child for adoption. Mother’s sole claim on appeal was that the juvenile court erred by ruling the parental benefit exception to termination of parental rights did not apply. The Court of Appeal found the record, especially the child’s consistent and compelling statements that she wished to be adopted, "amply supported" the juvenile court’s conclusion that termination of mother’s parental rights would not be detrimental to the child. Because the Court found no abuse of discretion, judgment was affirmed. View "In re I.E." on Justia Law

After mother was released from a section 5150 hold, the Agency and mother agreed to a safety plan whereby 11-month-old S.F. would remain in maternal grandmother’s care. Mother violated the safety plan. Father was then residing in New York but was providing monetary assistance to mother and minor. Mother and her boyfriend alleged she received threatening text messages from father. The Agency detained S.F. and filed a petition alleging failure to protect under Welfare and Institutions Code 300(b)(1), alleging that “father has anger management issues and “reported that he used to abuse crack cocaine and alcohol but that he is about 2 years sober.” Father desired to take custody and was willing to move to California. He alleged that he and his sister had been “physically present” and helped care for minor until minor was three months old.The juvenile court adjudicated S.F. a dependent of the court. The court of appeal reversed in part. The jurisdictional findings, the dispositional order removing S.F. from father’s custody, and the orders requiring father to engage in substance abuse testing and treatment are not supported by substantial evidence. The juvenile court adequately complied with the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901. The Agency had a reason to believe, but did not have sufficient information to determine there was a reason to know, S.F. was an Indian child. View "In re S.F." on Justia Law

Newborn A.H. was placed in a foster home. The Agency reported that it had denied a request for placement by J.B., a “nonrelative extended family member” (NREFM, Welf. & Inst. Code 362.7). J.B. filed a “Relative Information,” requesting that A.H. live with her. The Agency objected on the ground that J.B. was not a relative for purposes of the proceedings. The juvenile court agreed, stating that it independently considered placement with several relatives or with J.B. and denied placement with those individuals “for the reasons stated in the Social Worker’s Report.” J.B. filed a section 388 “Request to Change Court Order.” The juvenile court summarily denied J.B.’s petition, finding that the request did not state new evidence or a change of circumstances, and did not promote A.H.’s best interest. J.B. filed a notice of appeal. The Agency reported that in the dependency case of A.H.’s half-sibling, J.B. “created a division” between the Agency and the parents, falsely accusing the caregiver of neglect. The juvenile court terminated parental rights, selecting adoption as the permanent plan.The court of appeal dismissed J.B.’s appeal from the denial of her petition, the refusal to consider her relative information form, and the placement order. Although J.B. may have an “interest” in A.H. that is sufficient for filing a section 388 petition, she does not have a legally cognizable interest in A.H.’s placement such that she has standing to challenge the juvenile court’s placement decision. View "In re A.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting guardianship over L.S. and A.S. to David Sammons, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.In granting guardianship, the district court concluded that L.S.'s and A.S.'s welfare and best interests would best be served if Sammons was appointed as their sole respective guardian. On appeal, Mother argued that the court incorrectly applied the "best interest" standards set forth by Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-212 and -291 and the standards set forth by Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-228 for appointing a temporary guardian. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis for the conclusion that the district court acted arbitrarily, without conscientious judgment, or in excess of the bounds of reason in appointing temporary guardianship of L.S. and A.S. to Sammons. View "In re Guardianship of L.R.T.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition against the Logan County Common Pleas Court and Judge Natasha Kennedy, a judge of the Logan County Common Pleas Court, Family Court Division, holding that Relators, Josephine Davis, John Doe, and Jane Doe, were entitled to the writ.Davis, the biological mother of H.P., consented to the placement of care, custody, and control over H.P. to John and Jane Doe for purposes of adoption. The Does then filed an adoption petition for H.P. Thereafter, Kaidin Whitrock, H.P.'s biological father, filed a complaint to allocate parental rights and responsibilities. The probate court determined that Whitrock's consent to the adoption was not required under Ohio Rev. Code 3107.07(B)(1) because he failed to register as the putative father. The district court reversed, but the Supreme Court reversed. At issue was whether Judge Kennedy could continue to exercise juvenile court jurisdiction without interfering with the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the probate court. The Supreme Court granted Relators' requested writ of prohibition, holding that Judge Kennedy may not continue to exercise jurisdiction over Whitrock's petition to allocate parental rights and his request for a temporary order of parenting time. View "State ex rel. Davis v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of divorce entered by the district court as to the disposition of certain property and the dissolution of Cole G. Bridges Wild Blueberry LLC, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to order the dissolution of the LLC and erred in setting aside certain property to Cole Bridges.In 2020, Candy Littell filed for divorce from Bridges. The district court granted the divorce. On appeal, Bridges argued that the district court erred in evaluating and classifying a Cessna airplane and lacked jurisdiction to dissolve the LLC. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part and remanded the case, holding (1) the court did not have jurisdiction over the LLC and thus could not order its dissolution; and (2) the court erred in its classification and valuation of the Cessna airplane. View "Littell v. Bridges" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in this dispute between the children and grandchildren of Martin and Gay Aimone regarding their inheritances and ownership interests in the family ranch, holding that the court erred in part.In one appeal, the Aimones' surviving children (Chris and Colleen) challenged the district court's reformation of Gay's trust to reflect her intention that her surviving children and grandchildren be beneficiaries under the trust. In the second appeal, four of the Aimones' grandchildren (the Aimones brothers) argued that the district court improperly rejected their claims that Chris and Colleen violated their fiduciary obligations as the manager of one of the Aimone entities and as trustee of the trust. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's ruling in the first appeal concerning the intention of the trust; but (2) reversed the ruling in the second appeal, holding that Chris breached her fiduciary duties to the Aimone entity and should be removed as manager and that Colleen breached her fiduciary duties to Gay's trust, but damages were not proven to a reasonable degree of certainty. View "Aimone v. Aimone" on Justia Law

Wayne Anderson appealed, and Renee Anderson cross-appealed the parties' divorce judgment. The parties raised issues concerning the district court’s marital estate valuation and distribution. Wayne also argued the court erred when it ordered him to pay attorney fees as a sanction for discovery violations and contempt. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the contempt decision because Wayne did not timely appeal that order. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the award of attorney fees. The Court reversed the district court’s property valuation, concluding the court erred as a matter of law when it valued a capital loss carryover for tax purposes and when it excluded a portion of the parties’ assets from the marital estate. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider its property distribution. View "Anderson v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Michael Knudsen appealed a district court order determining Knudsen did not establish a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility and denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility, and from a district court order denying his motion to disqualify Tessa Falcon’s counsel. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Falcon v. Knudsen, et al." on Justia Law

T.L.B. appealed a district court judgment changing the surname of her child from T.L.B.’s surname to a hyphenated surname under N.D.C.C. § 14- 20-57(7). The child’s hyphenated name combined her father’s and mother’s surnames. On appeal, T.L.B. argued the district court: (1) erroneously found she changed her surname after her marriage; (2) erred because it hyphenated H.R.B’s name on the erroneous basis that she shared a name with no one else in her household; (3) erred because it did not consider the factors for changing a name under N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3); (4) erred because it did not consider T.L.B.’s emotional injury as an injury for purposes of N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3); (5) erred in hyphenating H.R.B.’s surname because it had insufficient best interests of the child evidence; and (6) erred in hyphenating H.R.B.’s surname because the suggestion to hyphenate the child’s surname was raised for the first time at the evidentiary proceeding. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "E.R.J. v. T.L.B." on Justia Law