| Flores Castro v. Hernandez Renteria |
| Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Docket: 19-16048 Opinion Date: August 19, 2020 Judge: Milan Dale Smith, Jr. Areas of Law: Family Law, International Law |
| The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for the return of a child to Mexico pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Petitioner is the child's paternal half-sister and respondent is the child's maternal grandmother, who has been raising the child in Las Vegas, Nevada since 2017. In this case, the district court clearly erred in its factual finding regarding the date of removal, which was August 25, 2017. Furthermore, respondent's removal of the child was wrongful because it breached the Mexican court's rights of custody. Because the petition was filed more than one year after the date of wrongful removal, the district court had discretion to decline to order the return of the child. Because petitioner does not appeal the district court's findings that the child is now settled in Las Vegas, nor does petitioner argue that the district court abused its discretion in declining to order return, the panel affirmed the district court's discretionary decision not to order the return of the child pending custody proceedings. |
| |
| Robert A. v. Tatiana D. |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court Docket: S-17255 Opinion Date: August 14, 2020 Judge: Peter J. Maassen Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The superior court found that a father had a history of committing domestic violence, and it therefore established benchmarks for him to meet before he could begin supervised visitation with his children. The father did not appeal that decision. He nonetheless sought to relitigate the domestic violence finding in subsequent proceedings, but the superior court ruled that relitigation of the issue was barred by collateral estoppel. Following an extended evidentiary hearing, the superior court found that the father had met the benchmarks set by the earlier order and conditionally granted his request that he be allowed to begin supervised visitation. But the superior court also said that because of the “challenging” nature of the case it could not approve a visitation plan without more detail, such as the identity of individuals willing to act as counselors and visitation coordinators and how the parties would pay for their services. The father appealed the superior court’s order granting in part his motion for supervised visitation, including its application of collateral estoppel to the earlier finding of domestic violence. Because the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not abuse its broad discretion or otherwise err in this custody case, it affirmed the visitation order. |
| |
| Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: B301629(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: August 18, 2020 Judge: Dennis M. Perluss Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Court of Appeal granted an extraordinary writ of relief from the juvenile court's order at the 18-month permanency review hearing terminating mother's reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26 to consider implementation of a permanent plan of adoption for her son. The court held that a parent's lack of insight may be considered by the juvenile court when assessing whether a child may safely be returned home. Although the court rejected mother's claims to the contrary, the court held that the Department failed to present substantial evidence that the child would be at a substantial risk of detriment if returned to mother. The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate its order setting a hearing for the child under section 366.26 and set a continued 18-month permanency review hearing at the earliest date consistent with the rights of the parties to prepare their case. |
| |
| Sierra v. DSCYF |
| Court: Delaware Supreme Court Docket: 354 355, 2019 Opinion Date: August 17, 2020 Judge: Seitz Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law |
| Mother and Father appealed a Family Court order terminating their parental rights to Giselle, who was four months old when the Family Court first ordered her removed from the parents’ care. The court found Giselle was at risk of chronic and life threatening abuse based on the previous unexplained serious injuries to her older sibling. The Family Court also found Mother and Father failed to plan for Giselle’s physical needs and her mental and emotional health and development. Mother and Father challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of parental rights and raised a number of constitutional arguments on appeal. Finding the arguments lacked merit, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s judgment. |
| |
| In re O.P. |
| Court: Maryland Court of Appeals Docket: 26/19 Opinion Date: August 14, 2020 Judge: Robert N. McDonald Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Court of Appeals held that a juvenile court's decision to deny continued shelter care in a child in need of assistance (CINA) case is appealable under the collateral order doctrine and that the court may authorize continued shelter care for up to thirty days if makes the necessary findings and may extend shelter care beyond thirty days if it makes the findings by a preponderance standard. Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services placed an infant in emergency shelter care and filed a CINA petition with a request for continued temporary shelter care pending resolution of the CINA petition. After a hearing, the juvenile court denied the Department's request for continued shelter care, concluding that the Department had failed to establish the statutory criteria by a preponderance of the evidence. The court of special appeals affirmed, holding that the juvenile court used the correct standard of proof. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) a juvenile court may continue temporary emergency shelter under conditions set forth in this opinion; and (2) any continuation of shelter care beyond thirty days must be based upon findings made applying a preponderance of evidence standard at the adjudicatory stage of the CINA case. |
| |
| In re R.S. |
| Court: Maryland Court of Appeals Docket: 58/19 Opinion Date: August 17, 2020 Judge: Hotten Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals vacating the judgment of the circuit court finding that R.S. was a child in need of assistance (CINA), holding that the court of special appeals did not err in holding that the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) does not apply to out-of-state placements of a child in the care of a biological, non-custodial parent. Based on its determination that the ICPC applied to the placement of R.S. in the care of her biological father, the juvenile court awarded joint custody of R.S. to the non-custodial biological father and parental grandparents. The court of special appeals vacated the judgment, concluding that the plain language of the ICPC, codified in Md. Code, Fam. Law Art. 5-601-5-611, did not apply under the circumstances of this case. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the ICPC does not apply to out-of-state placements with non-custodial biological parents; and (2) because the ICPC did not apply under the circumstances of this case and the court never determined that the biological father was unfit, the CINA order was properly vacated. |
| |
| Gyger v. Clement |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 31PA19 Opinion Date: August 14, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's ruling denying Plaintiff's motions for relief from the order vacating the registration of her foreign support order, holding that the trial court erred by not admitting into evidence Plaintiff's affidavit under N.C. Gen. Stat. 52C-3-315(b) because the statute's plain terms do not require notarization. Plaintiff initiated an action in Geneva to establish paternity and child support of her two children. The Swiss court entered judgment against Defendant on both counts. The Guilford County Clerk of Court registered the Swiss support order for enforcement. The trial court, however, subsequently vacated the registration of the foreign support order and dismissed the action, finding that no evidence was provided that Defendant had been provided with proper notice of the Swiss proceedings. Plaintiff filed a motion for relief and attempted to introduce two affidavits and a transcript. The trial court excluded the first affidavit because it was not notarized and ultimately denied Plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff's affidavit was admissible because it was executed under penalty of perjury as allowed by section 52C-3-315(b). |
| |
| In re E.F. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 14A20 Opinion Date: August 14, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her four minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that there were grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights for neglect, failure to pay a reasonable portion of the children's cost of care, and dependency. The court then concluded that terminating the parental rights of Mother was in the best interests of the children. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests that her parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding it was in the children's best interests to terminate her parental rights. |
| |
| In re E.J.B. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 217A19 Opinion Date: August 14, 2020 Judge: Cheri Beasley Areas of Law: Family Law, Native American Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his children, holding that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and that the post termination proceedings did not cure the errors. On appeal, Father asked the Supreme Court to vacate each of the judgments and orders entered in this case because the trial court failed to comply with the notice requirements under the Act before terminating his parental rights. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case, holding that where the trial court had reason to know that an Indian child might be involved and that where any notices the trial court sent failed to include all of the necessary information required by statute, the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights must be reversed. |
| |
| In re J.A.E.W. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 380A19 Opinion Date: August 14, 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 daughter, holding that the trial court properly terminated Father's rights based on an adjudication under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3) that he willfully failed to pay child support in the six months prior to the filing of the termination-of-parental-rights petition. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on four separate grounds. The trial court also determined that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court erred in adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate his parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Father willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the child's cost of care despite his physical and financial ability to do so. |
| |
| In re K.L.M. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 365A19 Opinion Date: August 14, 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 three children in this private termination action, holding that the trial court considered the factors in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a), and the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The trial court terminated Father's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in weighing the factors and concluding that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Father's parental rights. |
| |
| In re L.E.W. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 390A19 Opinion Date: August 14, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court eliminating reunification from the permanent plan for Mother's daughter and terminating Mother's parental rights in the child, holding that that district court judge did not err. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the judge did not commit prejudicial error by misstating the applicable standard of proof, eliminating reunification as a component of the permanent plan for the child, or reducing the amount of visitation that Mother was entitled to have with the child in the permanency planning order; and (2) the judge did not err by finding that Mother's parental rights in the child were subject to termination based upon her willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the child's removal from the family home. |
| |
| In re Welfare of D.E. |
| Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 98043-8 Opinion Date: August 20, 2020 Judge: G. Helen Whitener Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law |
| In 2018, the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families (Department) moved to terminate J.J.'s parental rights to her three children. After closing arguments, the trial court orally ruled that the Department had not met its burden to prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the Department had offered all necessary services or that there was no reasonable likelihood of J.J. correcting her parental deficiencies in the near future. But instead of dismissing the termination petition, the trial court continued the trial without entering any findings of fact or conclusions of law. Two months later, the trial court heard more evidence and then terminated J.J.’s parental rights to all three of her children. J.J. appealed, arguing that the trial court violated her right to due process when it continued the trial after finding that the Department had not met its burden of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the termination petition, holding the trial court indeed violated J.J.’s right to due process when it continued the trial after finding the Department had not met its burden of proof. |
| |
