| Abou-Haidar v. Sanin Vazquez |
| Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Docket: 19-7110 Opinion Date: December 27, 2019 Judge: Cornelia Thayer Livingston Pillard Areas of Law: Family Law, International Law |
| In this first case arising under the Hague Convention that has reached the DC Circuit, petitioner claimed that his wife, respondent, wrongfully retained their five-year-old daughter in the United States. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that respondent retained the child in May 2019 and that the child's habitual residence was France. The court held that respondent's arguments regarding the date of retention and the child's habitual residence lacked merit. Furthermore, because the parties chose the Mozes framework, and respondent has not challenged the district court's findings under the remaining questions or asserted any defenses, the court affirmed the district court's grant of petitioner's petition for return. |
| |
| In re Tresin J. |
| Court: Connecticut Supreme Court Docket: SC20267 Opinion Date: January 7, 2020 Judge: Richard A. Robinson Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights as to his child, holding that Father's parental rights were properly terminated for lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship. Father was incarcerated when the child was two years old. At the time of the termination trial, the child, who was six years old, had no knowledge or memory of Father. On appeal, Father argued that the virtual infancy and interference exceptions to the lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship ground for the termination of parental rights was applicable because the child was only two years old when Father's incarceration separated them, and the circumstances of this case rendered contact impossible during his incarceration. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the interference and virtual infancy exceptions were inapplicable as a matter of law, and therefore, the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court's termination of Father's parental rights. |
| |
| In re Child of Philip S. |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation: 2020 ME 2 Opinion Date: January 2, 2020 Judge: Leigh Ingalls Saufley Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing for lack of standing Uncle and Aunt's family matter complaint seeking a determination of de facto parentage as to Child, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Uncle and Aunt lacked standing. The paternal aunt and uncle of Child sought a determination of de facto parentage while a child protection matter was pending with respect to Child. The district court granted Uncle and Aunt's motion to intervene in the child protection matter and dismissed for lack of standing their family matter complaint seeking to establish de facto parentage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts did not compel a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Uncle and Aunt satisfied all necessary elements for establishing standing to seek de facto parentage. |
| |
| In re Child of Vanessa G. |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation: 2019 ME 178 Opinion Date: December 30, 2019 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), and (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), holding that the court did not err in finding that Mother was an unfit parent. The district court concluded that Mother's parental rights should be terminated because Mother was unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child and those circumstances were unlikely to change within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no error of law or abuse of discretion in the court's termination of Mother's parental rights. |
| |
| In re Children of Brittany B. |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation: 2020 ME 1 Opinion Date: January 2, 2020 Judge: Leigh Ingalls Saufley Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that two of Mother's children were in jeopardy to their health or welfare while in Mother's care, holding that Mother did not present a prima facie case of attorney ineffectiveness and that the record supported the court's evidentiary rulings. After a contested jeopardy hearing, the district court found jeopardy to the children based on the risk of physical and emotional harm and exposure to multiple unsafe people with a history of violence. Mother appealed, arguing that her trial counsel's assistance was ineffective and that the court abused its discretion by admitting certain statements by the children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the record demonstrated assertive and effective assistance of counsel; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the children's statements; and (3) the court's finding that the children would be in circumstances of jeopardy in Mother's care was based on competent evidence in the record. |
| |
| In re Children of Danielle M. |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation: 2019 ME 174 Opinion Date: December 30, 2019 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children, holding that there was sufficient evidence supporting an order terminating each parent's parental rights and that the Department of Health and Human Services provided appropriate and necessary reunification services. The district court terminated Mother's parental rights to her three children and terminated Father's parental rights to the child the parents had in common. Both parents appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's judgment terminating Parents' parental rights; and (2) the Department made good faith efforts to cooperate with Father in pursuit of the rehabilitation and reunification plan for him. |
| |
| In re Children of Troy P. |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation: 2019 ME 177 Opinion Date: December 30, 2019 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their three children, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings of parental unfitness. The district court entered a judgment terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights to their three children. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings that the parents were unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them in a time reasonably calculated to meet their needs; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings that both parents failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children; and (3) the court did not err in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. |
| |
| Staveland and Fisher |
| Court: Oregon Supreme Court Docket: S066424 Opinion Date: December 27, 2019 Judge: Jack L. Landau Areas of Law: Family Law |
| At issue in this case was the dissolution of a domestic partnership, specifically, how to distribute the appreciation in value of a home in which the parties lived during their time together. The trial court found the parties intended to live as a married couple and share in the appreciation of the home. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in coming to that conclusion. On review, the parties dispute whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of review and whether that court correctly concluded that the parties should share in the appreciation in the home. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals applied an incorrect standard of review, but that it ultimately reached the correct decision. |
| |
| In re M.E. |
| Court: Vermont Supreme Court Citation: 2019 VT 90 Opinion Date: December 27, 2019 Judge: Carroll Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law |
| Juvenile M.E. appealed the family division’s dismissal of the State’s petition to declare her a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS). In May 2019, the Department for Children and Families (DCF) filed a petition alleging that M.E. was without proper parental care. The CHINS petition was based on mother’s admitted use of heroin on one occasion and allegations that M.E. had been exposed to drug use and paraphernalia while in the care of her parents. The court issued an emergency care order transferring custody to DCF. After a temporary care hearing, custody was continued with DCF. A merits hearing was held; subsequently the court concluded the State failed to establish the merits and dismissed the petition. “[A]ny time the State seeks to interfere with the rights of parents on the generalized assumption that the children are in need of care and supervision, it must first produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the statutory directives allowing such intervention are fully satisfied.” The fact that there was evidence in the record to contradict the court’s findings was insufficient for the Vermont Supreme Court to reverse the trial court’s conclusion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed dismissal of the CHINS petition. |
| |
| Mets v. State, Department of Family Services |
| Court: Wyoming Supreme Court Citation: 2020 WY 1 Opinion Date: January 2, 2020 Judge: Gray Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that even if the district court erred in admitting Mother's physician's testimony and a related 2011 medical record, Mother was not prejudiced and the error was harmless. The jury found clear and convincing evidence for termination on grounds on two separate statutory grounds. Mother appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted privileged evidence through her physician's testimony and an associated medical record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was ample evidence without the physician testimony and associated medical record to show that Mother was unfit to have custody and control of the child as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(v); and (2) even assuming the testimony and medical record were privileged and the district court erred in admitting them, the error was harmless. |
| |
