| In re M.W. |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: C089997(Third Appellate District) Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: Renner Areas of Law: Family Law, Native American Law |
| The Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of the newborn minor pursuant to Welf. & Inst. Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The petition alleged the minor suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, harm due to substance abuse by mother and alleged father M.W. The petition further alleged substantial risk to the minor due to the abuse or neglect of, and eventual termination of mother’s parental rights over, the minor’s three half-siblings. Mother and M.W. reported they believed M.W. was the minor’s biological father but requested a paternity test for confirmation. Mother also reported the maternal grandfather had Native American heritage with the Apache Tribe, later confirming her claim in her parental notification of Indian status form (ICWA-020). M.W. denied having any Indian ancestry. At a detention hearing, the juvenile court made ICWA orders as to mother and ordered the minor detained. The Department interviewed mother in custody, and learned A.C. (father) could potentially be the minor's biological father. No parent was present for a January 2019 jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The court ordered the Department to continue its search for father and, upon locating him, inform him of the proceedings and his options for establishing paternity, and to make ICWA inquiry. Father appeared in court on March 27, 2019, and requested paternity testing to determine whether the minor was his biological child. By May 2019, father was given court appointed counsel, and was found to be the minor's biological father. Because family members refused to cooperate with a social worker's investigation, twelve tribes were contacted for help determining the minor's status as an Indian Child. Ten confirmed the minor was not an Indian for purposes of the ICWA, and the remainder did not respond by the time of the hearing. The court ruled the ICWA did not appeal as to the minor, and Father's parental rights to the child were ultimately terminated. He appealed, arguing the Department failed to comply with the ICWA. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's ICWA ruling and termination of parental rights. |
| |
| Ellis v. Ellis |
| Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil Docket: 46477 Opinion Date: June 9, 2020 Judge: Bevan Areas of Law: Family Law |
| In a divorce action between Lexi and Robert Ellis, the magistrate court granted Ms. Ellis’ motion for appointment of a receiver, subject to the express condition that the costs of the receiver would be paid from community funds. The district court affirmed a series of decisions made by the magistrate court relating to Bruce Denney’s efforts to collect payment for services he performed as a receiver and forensic accountant in the Ellis divorce. After the divorce was final, Denney’s accounting firm, Poston, Denney & Killpack, PLLC (“PDK”) moved to intervene to recover payment from Robert Ellis, which the magistrate court granted. Later, the magistrate court granted PDK’s motion for summary judgment and ordered Mr. Ellis to pay one-half of Mr. Denney’s fees. The magistrate court declined to rule on the reasonableness of the fees at that time, determining further proceedings would be necessary. PDK filed a motion for a determination of the reasonableness of fees. After a hearing the magistrate court granted PDK’s motion and held Mr. Denney’s fees were reasonable. The magistrate court also awarded attorney fees to PDK in bringing the action to recover attorney fees. Mr. Ellis appealed to the district court, which upheld the magistrate court’s decision and also awarded attorney fees to PDK on appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court. |
| |
| In re Child of Louise G. |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation: 2020 ME 87 Opinion Date: June 9, 2020 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, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence for the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unfit and that termination was in the best interest of the child. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the district court's findings as they relied to Mother's unfitness were supported by the evidentiary record, such as evidence regarding Mother's inability to remain child-focused and her longstanding health issues; and (2) there was neither error nor abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interest. |
| |
| In re Children of Jamie P. |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation: 2020 ME 85 Opinion Date: June 9, 2020 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 trial court did not commit clear error or abuse its discretion. In terminating Parents' parental rights the trial court concluded that Parents were unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy and that these circumstances were unlikely to change within a time calculated to meet the children's needs and that Parents had been unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the Department of Health and Human Services presented sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could find that Parents were parentally unfit; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination was in the children's best interests; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in questioning Father or any other witness pursuant to Me. R. Evid. 614. |
| |
| In re Children of Jason C. |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation: 2020 ME 86 Opinion Date: June 9, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to his two children, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Father was parentally unfit and that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination was in the best interests of the children. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the record contained sufficient evidence for the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that Father was unable or unwilling to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for the children within a time reasonably calculated to meet the children's needs or in finding that Father failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the children and was therefore unfit to parent the children; and (2) the record contained sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that termination was in the children's best interests. |
| |
| E.M. v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court Citation: 306 Neb. 1 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: William B. Cassel Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of a state agency ruling several noncitizen applicants ineligible for all public benefits of the Bridge to Independence program (B2I), holding that the district court did not err in determining that applicants were not eligible for B2I. The applicants in this case were Guatemalan citizens who fled to Nebraska as minors. Each applicant was adjudicated pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) and placed in foster care. The applicants, who had already received special immigration juvenile status, applied to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for B2I. DHHS denied the applications because each applicant failed to meet the citizenship and lawful presence requirements. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the applicants were not eligible for B2I because the applicants were not "lawfully present" and the legislature did not "affirmatively provide" for unlawful applicants to be eligible under the Young Adult Bridge to Independence Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-4501 to 43-4514. |
| |
| State, ex rel. Ryley G. v. Ryan G. |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court Citation: 306 Neb. 63 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: William B. Cassel Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the judgment of the district court determining that it was in Child's best interests to continue living with Mother and in declining to change custody of Child to Father, holding that deployment of Mother's military spouse for one year to a base near Washington, D.C., coupled with a change in employment conditions after the deployment ended, constituted a legitimate reason for leaving the state. After Mother, who had custody of Child, remarried, she sought a modification requesting permission to move with Child to the District of Columbia and thereafter to wherever he husband was stationed. The court granted Mother leave to remove Child from Nebraska and to determine his primary place of residence. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Mother established a legitimate reason for leaving Nebraska and moving with Child to the District of Columbia, and the district court did not err in determining that it was in Child's best interests to continue living with Mother; (2) the court did not err in declining to change custody of Child to Father; and (3) to the extent the order authorizes Mother to later move with Child to Missouri or Alabama, the order is modified to eliminate that authority. |
| |
| In re A.J.T. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 230A19 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: Robin E. Hudson Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' rights to their minor child, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it would be in the child's best interests to terminate Respondents' parental rights. The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Respondents' parental rights on the grounds that Respondents neglected their child, willfully left the child in foster care or placement outside the home for more than twelve months without making reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to his removal, and willfully failed to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of care for the child. The trial court entered an order finding all three grounds for termination and concluding that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that termination of Respondents' parental rights was in the child's best interests was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unsupported by reason. |
| |
| In re A.L.S. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 295A19 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: Cheri Beasley Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court on adjudication and disposition that terminated Mother's parental rights to her child, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's second motion to continue the termination hearing in order to obtain her son's testimony; and (2) did not err in adjudicating grounds for the termination of Mother's parental rights because the evidence and the court's findings of fact supported its conclusion that Mother willfully abandoned her child for purposes of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). |
| |
| In re C.R.B. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 292A19 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. Randolph County Department of Social Services filed motions to terminate Respondents' parental rights to their two children on the grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the children's removal from their home. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Respondents' parental rights based on both grounds alleged in the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. |
| |
| In re C.V.D.C. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 314A19 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: Paul M. Newby 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 the court's findings of fact were sufficient to comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) and to support the trial court's discretionary determination that the children's best interests would be served by the termination of Mother's parental rights. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated grounds for terminating Mother's parental rights based on her neglect of the children and her willful failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to their removal from her care. The court then concluded that it was in the best interests of both children that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in making its dispositional determination that terminating Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. |
| |
| In re F.S.T.Y. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 129A19 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: Cheri Beasley Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights, holding that the status exception to the requirement that a nonresident parent have minimum contacts with North Carolina in order to establish personal jurisdiction over him for purposes of termination of parental rights proceedings applies to termination of parental rights proceedings. After the children in this case were adjudicated as neglected the trial court acknowledged that Father was a resident of South Carolina. The trial court later terminated Father's parental rights. Father appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights because he lacked minimum contacts with the State of North Carolina. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that due process does not require a nonresident parent to have minimum contacts with the State to establish personal jurisdiction for purposes of termination of parental rights proceedings. |
| |
| In re I.N.C. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 281A19 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: Ervin Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their two minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Parents' parental rights would be in the children's best interests. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Parents' parental rights on the grounds of neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. Further, the trial court concluded that termination of Parents' parental rights would be in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court considered all of the relevant statutory criteria set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) and made a reasoned determination that termination of Parents' parental rights in the children would be in the children's best interests. |
| |
| In re J.M.J.-J |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 300A19 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: Morgan 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 in adjudicating neglect as a ground to terminate Father's parental rights to his minor child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect and abandonment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7). The trial court further concluded that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's conclusion that a ground for termination existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(1) was sufficient in and of itself to support the termination of Father's parental rights. |
| |
| In re L.T. |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 274A19 Opinion Date: June 5, 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 child, holding that Father did not meet his burden of showing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition alleging that the child was a neglected and dependent juvenile, that the mother lived in Ohio, and that the child lived with Father in Charlotte, North Carolina. Thereafter, Father's attorney informed the court that the child had not lived in North Carolina for six months before the petition was filed and that there appeared to be a valid custody order from Delaware that granted sole custody to Father. The trial court concluded that it had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)92). Father appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of the UCCJEA when it learned of the Delaware custody order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that North Carolina was the child's home state under the UCCJEA and the trial court had jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. 50A-203 to modify the Delaware custody order and preside over the case. |
| |
| Routten v. Routten |
| Court: North Carolina Supreme Court Docket: 455A18 Opinion Date: June 5, 2020 Judge: Morgan Areas of Law: Family Law |
| In this child custody dispute between two biological parents the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals to the extent that it vacated the trial court's order regarding custody, holding that a trial court may grant full custody to one parent and deny visitation to the other parent under certain circumstances. The trial court entered an amended permanent child custody order awarding sole physical custody of the parties' children to Father and denying visitation by Mother. The court of appeals vacated the order, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Mother's ability to have visitation with her children without a determination that she was unfit to have visitation with them. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court may deny visitation to a non-custodial parent, so long as the court has entered a written finding of fact that such a custody award is in the best interests of the children, without the need to have determined that the parent who has been denied visitation is deemed unfit to spend time with the children. |
| |
| MH v. First Judicial District Court of Laramie County |
| Court: Wyoming Supreme Court Citation: 2020 WY 72 Opinion Date: June 10, 2020 Judge: Kate M. Fox Areas of Law: Family Law, Health Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Petitioner's petition for an order recognizing her change of sex and gender so that she could amend her birth certificate, holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner's birth certificate identified her as male, but Petitioner identified and held herself out as female. Petitioner petitioned the district court for an order recognizing her change of sex and gender pursuant to its power of general jurisdiction and Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-1-424(a). The district court denied the petition, concluding that neither the Wyoming Constitution, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-1-424, nor the rules of the Wyoming Department of Health (WDOH) granted it subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Wyoming Constitution and precedent require a presumption in favor of district court subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the Vital Records Act provides the district court subject matter jurisdiction to address Petitioner's petition for sex change; and (3) therefore, the district court has subject matter jurisdiction. |
| |
