| Marriage of Sawyer |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: H046558(Sixth Appellate District) Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Danner Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law |
| In 2001, a Minnesota state court ordered James to pay $89,582.15 in child support arrears to his ex-wife, Rosemary, for their two children. James was then living in California. In 2005 the Minnesota order was registered for enforcement purposes in Santa Cruz County Superior Court under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. In 2018, in connection with registration in California of a renewed judgment from Minnesota, the Santa Cruz County court stayed enforcement of a portion of James’s child support arrears determined by the 2001 Minnesota order because the children had intermittently lived with James between 1993 and 2002. The trial court found the remainder of the arrears enforceable. The Santa Cruz County Department of Child Support Services, which has assisted in the enforcement and collection of James’s child support arrears, contends that the court lacked authority under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to stay the arrears owed by James because the 2001 Minnesota order at issue was registered and confirmed in California in 2005, and James did not timely challenge its registration. The court of appeal agreed and reversed the portion of the 2018 order staying enforcement of $28,890 of the arrears, while affirming that the remainder of the arrears ($60,692.15) was enforceable. |
| |
| Noergaard v. Noergaard |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: G057332(Fourth Appellate District) Opinion Date: November 24, 2020 Judge: Richard M. Aronson Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, International Law |
| In this opinion, the Court of Appeal addressed three consolidated appeals relating to a judgment for the return of a child in an international custody dispute. This case was retried after the Court reversed an earlier judgment marred by due process violations. After remand, the trial court again granted father’s petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention) and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), for return of the child to her father’s custody in Denmark, her country of habitual residence. The court also awarded father his attorney fees and other expenses as the prevailing party under the Convention and ICARA. Mother filed separate appeals of the return order and the fees award and two post judgment sealing orders related to the parties’ use of the transcript of the trial judge’s confidential interview with the child during the trial. The Court of Appeal determined mother’s appeal of the return order was moot because the child was nearly 18 years old, and the Convention did not apply after the child who was the subject of the return petition turns 16. The Court reversed the fees award, because mother had no opportunity for a full and fair hearing on father’s motion for fees. As for mother’s appeal of the postjudgment sealing orders, the Court found no merit to the appeal and affirmed the orders. |
| |
| In re Interest of A.A. |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court Citation: 307 Neb. 817 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Freudenberg Areas of Law: Family Law |
| In case No. S-20-009, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the juvenile court denying Father's motion for placement, and in case No. S-20-244, affirmed the order of adjudication of the child over Father's objection, holding that the juvenile court erred in finding Father unfit and in denying his parental preference for physical custody. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services was given temporary custody of the child and placed him in temporary foster care. After Father became aware that the child was in foster care he moved for temporary physical placement. The juvenile court denied the motion and proceeded with adjudication of the child. In case No. S-20-009, Father appealed the denial of his motion for placement. In case No. S-20-244, Father argued that his appeal in case No. S-20-009 divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction to issue the adjudication. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order denying Father's motion for placement, holding that because Father was not given notice that his fitness or forfeiture were to be adjudicated at the hearing on his motion for placement, the juvenile court could not properly deprive him of his right to custody under the parental preference doctrine; and (2) affirmed the order of adjudication in case No. S-20-244, holding that the order of adjudication was not void. |
| |
| In re Marian T. |
| Court: New York Court of Appeals Citation: 2020 NY Slip Op 06932 Opinion Date: November 23, 2020 Judge: DiFiore Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Court of Appeals affirmed the opinion of the Appellate Division concluding that, in appropriate circumstances, N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law (DRL) 111(1)(a) permits a court to approve an adoption even absent the consent of an adult adoptee and held that that discretion was not abused in this case. Petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking to adopt Marian, a sixty-six-year-old woman with a profound intellectual disability. Mental Hygiene Legal Services objected to the adoption on the ground that Marian's consent was required under DRL 111(1)(a) and that Marian lacked the capacity to consent. Surrogate's Court did not find that Marian possessed the capacity to consent but concluded that the guardian ad litem had the implied authority to consent on Marian's behalf. The court then approved the adoption petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that DRL 111(1)(a) authorizes a court, in the appropriate exercise of its discretion, to dispense with an adult adoptee's consent to the adoption. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Appellate Division correctly concluded that the statute provided express statutory authority to dispense with Marian's consent and that the court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that her inability to consent should not prevent this adoption. |
| |
| In re A.H.F.S. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 369A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Cheri Beasley Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their three children, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights and did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. The trial court terminated Parents' parental rights based on neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by concluding that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights; and (2) the trial court properly considered the statutory facts set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) when determining the children's best interests. |
| |
| In re A.J.P. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 452A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor child, holding that the trial court did not err. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Father's motion to continue the termination hearing; (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence and were sufficient to support the trial court's conclusions of law; (3) the trial court did not err by terminating Father's parental rights to his child on the ground that Father left the child in foster care for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to her removal; and (4) sufficient grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). |
| |
| In re A.S.M.R. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 379A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Davis Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights in their two children, holding that the court did not err or abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) a respondent's failure to appeal an adjudication order generally serves to preclude a subsequent collateral attack on that order during an appeal of a later order terminating the respondent's parental rights; and (2) the trial court's failure to make explicit findings establishing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) did not constitute error because the record unambiguously demonstrated that the jurisdictional perquisites in the UCCJEA were satisfied. |
| |
| In re A.S.T. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 18A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Cheri Beasley Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the trial court did not err by terminating Father's parental rights on the ground of neglect pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1). After a hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to his child, finding that both grounds alleged in the motion to terminate parental rights - neglect and failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home - and concluding that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating grounds to terminate Father's parental rights. |
| |
| In re C.B. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 354A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her five minor children, including Connor, the oldest child, holding that the trial court's conclusion that it was in Connor's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court erred in its dispositional decision by determination by determining that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of Connor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court made the necessary findings of fact as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) and that the court's findings supported its conclusion that termination was in Connor's best interests. |
| |
| In re D.L.A.D. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 123A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the trial court correctly concluded that grounds existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Mother's parental rights. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect under section 7B-1111(a)(1) and that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings of fact supported its conclusion that grounds existed under section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Mother's parental rights. |
| |
| In re E.C. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 413A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the unchallenged findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights and that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children under section 7B-1111(a)(2) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Mother's parental rights. |
| |
| In re G.L. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 191A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that termination was proper in this case. After a hearing, the trial court entered a dispositional order concluding that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the children's removal from the family home. The court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests for Mother's parental rights to be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of fact contained in the trial court's termination orders had ample record support and that those findings supported the court's determinations that Mother's parental rights in her two children were subject to termination on at least one of the grounds delineated in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a) and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. |
| |
| In re K.C.T. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 461A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that Mother's rights were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6) and that the trial court's findings of fact were insufficient to establish that grounds for termination existed under section 7B-1111(a)(7). Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) because the trial court failed to make the second required finding under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(6), the court erred in finding that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination based on dependency; (2) the trial court's findings of fact affirmatively demonstrated that Mother did not neglect her child by abandonment; and (3) the trial court did not make adequate evidentiary findings to support its ultimate finding that Mother willfully abandoned her child, and the appropriate disposition is to reverse this part of the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings. |
| |
| In re K.H. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 255A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that a parent and child must be living apart from each other for more than twelve months prior to the filing of a motion to terminate parental rights in order for grounds for termination to exist under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). Less than eight months after the child in this case was moved to a different foster home apart from Mother, the Cabarrus County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights. The trial court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2), (3), and (6). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the child was not left in foster care outside the home for more than twelve months the termination of Mother's parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(2) cannot be sustained; and (2) the trial court made insufficient findings of fact to support its conclusions of law that grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights existed under sections 7B-1111(a)(3) and (6). |
| |
| In re K.S.D-F. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 491A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their two children, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the termination order and did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Parents' rights was in the children's best interests. The trial court adjudicated that grounds existed to terminate Parents' parental rights due to neglect and willfully leaving the children in foster care for more than twelve months without showing reasonable progress to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal. The trial court further concluded that terminating Parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had jurisdiction over the termination action; and (2) the trial court's conclusion that termination of Parents' rights was in the children's best interests was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. |
| |
| In re N.M.H. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 474A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child in this private termination action, holding that termination was proper on willful abandonment grounds. Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect and willful abandonment. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights, determining that both grounds alleged in the termination petition existed and that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights at the adjudicatory stage in this case; and (2) the trial court's findings that were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the conclusion that Father's conduct met the statutory criterion of willful abandonment. |
| |
| In re O.W.D.A. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 397A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his son, holding that the trial court's conclusion that one statutory ground for termination existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) was sufficient in and of itself to support termination of Father's parental rights. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights and that it was in the child's best interest that Father's parental rights be terminated. Father appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that grounds existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(1) to terminate Father's parental rights. |
| |
| In re R.L.O. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 87A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Earls Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his three minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Father successfully appealed an earlier order that the court of appeals vacated and remanded. On remand, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(1). Before the Supreme Court, Father argued that the trial court failed to hear new evidence on remand and, therefore, could not make appropriate findings of fact to justify the termination of his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because, on remand, Father stipulated that the trial court could proceed without receiving new evidence, the stipulation was binding and prevented Father from raising the trial court's failure to hear new evidence as a reason for the Supreme Court to reverse its order; and (2) the trial court's findings reflected reasoned decision-making and supported its conclusion that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. |
| |
| In re S.E.T. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 10A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court vacated the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his daughter, holding that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Father in light of Mother's failure to effect proper service by publication pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(j1). Mother filed a petition seeking to terminate Father's parental rights in his child. Mother filed a motion seeking leave to serve Father by publication, which was granted. Mother obtained the running of a notice of service by publication in the Hendersonville Lightning informing Father that a termination of parental rights proceeding had been initiated against him. Father did not file a pleading in response and failed to appear for the termination hearing. The trial court subsequently terminated Father's parental rights. Father sought relief from the trial court's termination order. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding that Mother failed properly serve Father by publication in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(j1), and therefore, the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over Father. |
| |
| In re S.M. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 462A19 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Morgan Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to each of their six minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court found the existence of the ground of neglect and the ground of willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal from the parents' care. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination orders, holding (1) the trial court properly concluded that grounds for termination of both Parents' parental rights were shown to exist by clear, cogent and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Parents' rights was in the best interests of all six children. |
| |
| In re X.P.W. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 39A20 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his two minor children, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Father's brief were meritless. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, determining that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights due to neglect and abandonment. The trial court further concluded that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based upon proper legal grounds. |
| |
| W.H. v. Department for Children and Families |
| Court: Vermont Supreme Court Citation: 2020 VT 104 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Eaton Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law |
| At issue in this case was whether Vermont had to recognize and register an Alabama order granting plaintiff father, W.H., sole physical and legal custody of juvenile M.P., who resided in Vermont and was in the custody of the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) pursuant to a Vermont court order. The family division concluded that Alabama lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate matters related to M.P.’s custody and denied the registration request. On appeal, plaintiff contended Alabama had jurisdiction under the applicable state and federal laws and that Vermont was therefore obligated to recognize and register the Alabama custody order. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. |
| |
| Marquis v. Marquis |
| Court: Wyoming Supreme Court Citation: 2020 WY 141 Opinion Date: November 20, 2020 Judge: Gray Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying the child support Father paid to Mother for the benefit of the parties' three minor children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing before calculating child support; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it calculated Father's income, when it did not allow a downward deviation from Father's presumptive child support, and when it did not use a shared responsibility calculation; and (3) Mother was not entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees. |
| |
