| da Silva v. de Aredes |
| Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Dockets: 19-2100, 19-2217 Opinion Date: March 13, 2020 Judge: Sandra Lea Lynch Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The First Circuit affirmed the decisions of the district court ordering the return of A.C.A., the child that Mother "wrongfully removed" from Brazil, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the two affirmative defenses to return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction did not apply and did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a new trial. Without Father's consent or knowledge, Mother took A.C.A. from Brazil, where the parties lived, to the United States. Father filed a Hague Convention petition seeking the return of A.C.A. to Brazil. The district court concluded that Mother had wrongfully removed A.C.A. from Brazil and ordered that A.C.A. be returned to Brazil. Mother moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that Mother had not met her burden of proof as to any of her defenses; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motion for a new trial. |
| |
| Mouritsen v. Mouritsen |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court Docket: S-17401 Opinion Date: March 13, 2020 Judge: Joel H. Bolger Areas of Law: Family Law |
| A mother filed a motion for clarification, arguing that Alaska no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over a child custody order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) after she, her ex-husband, and their two children lived in South Carolina for over a year. The father objected, arguing he was still a resident of Alaska, and he intended to return to Alaska after his service in the Air Force. The superior court found that it did not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over its initial custody order because neither the parents nor the children presently resided in Alaska. The court also suggested that substantial evidence related to custody existed in South Carolina, and therefore it was likely the more appropriate forum. The Alaska Supreme Court determined the superior court indeed had continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Furthermore, because the parties and court did not have a full opportunity to address all of the relevant UCCJEA forum non conveniens factors, the court's orders were reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. |
| |
| Norman S. v. Alaska, Dept. of Health & Soc. Svcs, Ofc. of Children's Svcs. |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court Docket: S-17396 Opinion Date: March 13, 2020 Judge: Craig F. Stowers Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law |
| A father appealed after his parental rights to his daughter were terminated. The father attended the termination proceeding but left early, at which point the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) moved forward with an offer of proof. The father’s attorney objected to the offer of proof, but the court accepted the offer and terminated the father’s parental rights. Before the Alaska Supreme Court, the father challenged the termination proceeding’s procedure and outcome, arguing thatOCS’ use of an offer of proof violated his right to procedural due process and constituted structural error. He also argued the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights because there was not sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court agrees that a court could not accept such an offer as proof of the facts asserted, unless the opposing party offers no dispute. Therefore, the termination order was vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. |
| |
| Rosenbaum v. Shaw |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court Docket: S-17061 Opinion Date: March 13, 2020 Judge: Craig F. Stowers Areas of Law: Family Law, Public Benefits |
| This case involved an obligor father who never missed a child support payment to the obligee, mother for their minor child. The father retired and began collecting Social Security retirement benefits. As a result, the child became eligible to receive a derivative monthly children’s insurance benefit (CIB) from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The mother received four years of CIB payments in addition to regular monthly child support payments from the obligor; the law allowed the CIB payments to be credited against the child support obligation. However, neither parent notified the Alaska Department of Revenue, Child Support Services Division (CSSD) that they were receiving CIB payments for their daughter. After four years of overpayments, CSSD discovered the CIB payment from SSA and credited the father more than $47,000 in child support overpayment. The father filed suit, asking the superior court for a judgment against the mother for overpaid child support. He also requested reimbursement or credit for overpaid health insurance premiums. The superior court denied reimbursement for either overpayment, and the father appealed. After review, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, finding no reversible error in the superior court's judgment. |
| |
| In re N.D. |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: B300468(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: March 16, 2020 Judge: Tangeman Areas of Law: Family Law, Native American Law |
| The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the juvenile court's disposition order removing father's children from his custody and continuing their placement in foster care. The court held that CWS was required to complete its Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry and notification process at least 10 days before the disposition hearing, because CWS sought continuance of foster care. Accordingly, the court remanded to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of allowing CWS to comply with ICWA. |
| |
| K.G. v. S.B. |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: D075872(Fourth Appellate District) Opinion Date: March 16, 2020 Judge: Judith McConnell Areas of Law: Family Law, Personal Injury |
| Father knew his son, C.B., had been addicted to drugs for a number of years, and "had paid on numerous prior occasions" for C.B. to undergo "detox and/or drug rehabilitation and treatment programs to treat his addiction." C.B. was not employed and was "dependent" on Father for financial support. Father provided "regular, consistent, and frequent financial support" to C.B., which included paying for C.B.'s housing and living expenses as well as giving him money for spending and "necessities of life." The question posed by this appeal was whether Father could be held liable for the death of his son's girlfriend by overdose on methamphetamine allegedly purchased or supplied by the adult son. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a wrongful death complaint filed against Father. The trial court concluded no special relationship existed between Father and his adult son such that Father should be held liable for wrongful death of the girlfriend. To this, the Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed dismissal. |
| |
| M.G. v. Super. Ct. |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: G058611(Fourth Appellate District) Opinion Date: March 16, 2020 Judge: Kathleen E. O'Leary Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law |
| Mother, M.G., and Father, A.G., both petitioned for an extraordinary writ in the dependency cases of their children, A.G. and C.G. They challenged the juvenile court’s order after a contested review hearing. The court terminated family reunification services for Mother and Father and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing for March 19, 2020. Mother and Father assert the court erred by setting the .26 hearing because there was an insufficient evidentiary showing the children would be at risk in their care. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the parents that Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to present sufficient evidence the children would be at risk if returned to their parents. |
| |
| In re Interest of Taeson D. |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court Citation: 305 Neb. 279 Opinion Date: March 13, 2020 Judge: Lindsey Miller-Lerman Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the juvenile court did not deny Father procedural due process and did not err when it determined that terminating Father's parental rights to the child was appropriate under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292(2) and (7) and was in the best interests of the child. The juvenile court terminated Father's parental rights to his child on three statutory bases. Father appealed, arguing that his procedural due process rights were violated and that the juvenile court erred when it terminated his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Father was not denied procedural due process rights at the termination hearing; and (2) there was support in the record establishing grounds for termination under section 43-292(2) and (7) and the evidence demonstrated that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of the child. |
| |
| Interest of A.P.D.S.P.-G. |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 ND 72 Opinion Date: March 19, 2020 Judge: Lisa K. Fair McEvers Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law |
| T.P.-G. appealed the termination of her parental rights. On appeal, T.P.-G. argued she was denied due process and the juvenile court erred by denying her request to appear by telephone. A petition for involuntary termination of parental rights to a child, A.P.D.S.P.-G., was filed in the juvenile court. After a trial date was set, the mother, T.P.-G, filed a request to appear by phone because she lived in Wisconsin. The court denied the request. At trial, counsel stated T.P.-G. wished to contest the termination, regardless of whether she was able to attend the trial. Counsel stated T.P.-G. regretted being unable to attend, but T.P.-G. was saving her money to travel to see A.P.D.S.P.-G. for his birthday. After trial, the juvenile court found A.P.D.S.P.-G. was a deprived and abandoned child and terminated T.P.-G.’s parental rights to the child. Finding no due process violation, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed termination. |
| |
| Martodam v. Martodam |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 ND 70 Opinion Date: March 19, 2020 Judge: Jerod E. Tufte Areas of Law: Family Law |
| Jason Martodam appealed an amended divorce judgment and an order denying his motions for contempt and to amend the amended judgment. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in entering the interim order, denying his ex parte motion, and denying his motions for sanctions. The Court concluded the court did not err in awarding primary residential responsibility to Crystal Martodam and did not abuse its discretion in not holding her in contempt and in excluding exhibits that he had offered. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not err in failing to order a parenting investigator and in calculating child support. The trial court erred in allowing the minor children to decide whether to have parenting time. The amended judgment was affirmed as modified, as was the subsequent order denying the motions. |
| |
| Messmer v. Messmer |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 ND 62 Opinion Date: March 19, 2020 Judge: Jensen Areas of Law: Family Law |
| Robert and Clare Messmer were married in 1984. During the marriage, Robert actively engaged in farming and ranching. Clare helped with the farming and ranching activities as well as working outside the home. Clare initiated divorce proceedings in 2016. A trial was held in May 2018, with a judgment entered in August 2018. Robert appeal the amended divorce judgment and order granting a new trial. He argued the district court erred in the inclusion of 320 acres of property in the marital estate, the valuation and distribution of the parties’ property, the denial of an award of spousal support, and the denial of an award of attorney fees. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s inclusion of the 320 acres in the marital estate, reversed the district court’s valuation of the 320 acres, and remanded the case for further proceedings. |
| |
| In re K.M. |
| Court: Supreme Court of Ohio Citation: 2020-Ohio-995 Opinion Date: March 19, 2020 Judge: Judith L. French Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the court of appeals and remanded these cases to the juvenile court to enter orders of dismissal without prejudice, holding that Ohio Rev. Code 2151.35(B)(1) mandates the dismissal of a case if a juvenile court fails to conduct a dispositional hearing within ninety days of the filing of a complaint alleging that a child is abused, neglected or dependent. These cases involved two mothers and their children. Complaints were filed alleging the children to be abused and/or dependent. The mothers filed motions to dismiss arguing that section 2151.35(B)(1) required dismissal because the court had failed to hold its dispositional hearing within ninety days of the filing of the complaints. The juvenile court magistrates denied the motions. The magistrates found the children dependent and abused, and the juvenile courts adopted the magistrate's decisions. The court of appeals concluded that both mothers implicitly waived their right to a ninety-day disposition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the magistrates did not hold disposition hearings within the ninety-day period the juvenile court erred by failing to enter orders of dismissal without prejudice. |
| |
| Evans v. Evans |
| Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court Docket: 18-83 Opinion Date: March 18, 2020 Judge: Francis X. Flaherty Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court denied and dismissed Defendant's appeal from an order of the family court denying what Father characterized as a motion to receive a child support credit for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits that were paid directly to Mother for the care of the parties' child, holding that this appeal was not properly before the Court. The Supreme Court noted that, even though Father's motion was styled as a motion for credit, it was, in fact, a motion to modify the amount of child support Father was obligated to pay. Because matters relating to the modification of child support are not appealable, the Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of the appeal because it was not properly before the Court. |
| |
| In re Interest of L.G. |
| Court: Supreme Court of Texas Docket: 19-0488 Opinion Date: March 13, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| In this termination of parental rights case the Supreme Court granted Father's petition and affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's termination of Father's parental rights, holding that there was no error that warranted reversal as to the termination of Father's parental rights but that the court of appeals erred by not detailing its analysis as required by In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of ground to terminate Father's parental rights under Tex. Family Code 161.001(b)(1)(D),(E),(F),(N), and (O). The court further found that termination was in the child's best interest. The court of appeals affirmed. Father appealed, arguing, among other things, that the court of appeals erred by failing to detail its analysis of the trial court's findings as to grounds (D) and (E) in violation of In re N.G. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals properly found that termination was warranted in this case but erred in not detailing its analysis of whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported termination of parental rights under section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). |
| |
