| Henderson v. Box |
| Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Docket: 17-1141 Opinion Date: January 17, 2020 Judge: Frank Hoover Easterbrook Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law |
| Under Ind. Code 31-14-7-1(1), a husband is presumed to be a child’s biological father; both spouses are listed as parents on the birth certificate and the child is deemed to be born in wedlock. There is no similar presumption with respect to a same-sex couple. The district court issued an injunction requiring Indiana to treat children born into female-female marriages as having two female parents, who must be listed on the birth certificate. Because Indiana lists only two parents on a birth certificate, this prevents the state from treating as a parent the man who provided the sperm but requires that one spouse, who provided neither sperm nor egg, be identified as a parent. The court reasoned that Indiana lists a husband as a biological parent (when a child is born during marriage) even if he did not provide sperm, and must treat a wife as a parent even if she did not provide an egg. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, citing the Supreme Court’s 2017 holding, Pavan v. Smith, that same-sex and opposite-sex couples must have the same rights with respect to the identification of children’s parentage on birth certificates. Indiana’s statutory presumption violates the Constitution. The court rejected the state’s arguments that the statutory presumption is rebuttable. |
| |
| Terrell v. Torres |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court Docket: CV-19-0106-PR Opinion Date: January 23, 2020 Judge: Ann Timmer Areas of Law: Contracts, Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court directing the donation of cryopreserved embryos to another couple following the parties' divorce, holding that the parties' agreement directing the disposition of the embryos did not grant the family court discretion in awarding the embryos but, rather, directed donation of the embryos. After Husband petitioned for divorce he asked that the couple's seven viable cryogenically preserved embryos be donated to another couple. The family court found that the "Embryo Cryopreservation & Embryo Disposition" agreement entered into by the parties did not resolve whether either party should get the embryos or whether they should be donated. The court balanced the parties' interests and concluded that Husband's right not to be compelled to be a parent outweighed Wife's right to procreate and directed that the embryos be donated to another couple. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the agreement required donation of the embryos and did not grant the family court discretion to make either a unilateral award or direct donation. |
| |
| In re A.J. |
| Court: California Courts of Appeal Docket: B297762(Second Appellate District) Opinion Date: January 23, 2020 Judge: Moor Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's dispositional orders as to father only, entered on May 4, 2015, including the denial and termination of reunification services for father only. The court also vacated the juvenile court's April 30, 2019 order terminating parental rights. The court held that the department failed to show that the inadequate notice error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that father has shown a miscarriage of justice through the denial of his right to appear and his right to counsel. The court remanded with instructions to appoint counsel for father and to conduct a new dispositional hearing under sections 358 and 360, taking into account any evidence developed after the May 4, 2015 hearing that may bear upon the issues to be decided at the new dispositional hearing. |
| |
| Dow v. Billing |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Citation: 2020 ME 10 Opinion Date: January 23, 2020 Judge: Donald G. Alexander Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of divorce in this case, holding that there was no merit in Husband's arguments concerning a premarital agreement and a 401(k) plan Husband created during the marriage and that any error in the district court's consideration of the value of Husband's non marital property in its property distribution was harmless. On appeal, Husband argued that the district court (1) erred by interpreting the parties' premarital agreement as not applicable to the 401(k) plan and by failing to consider his testimony that the 401(k) plan was funded in part with nonmarital property, and (2) abused its discretion by making contradictory findings regarding its consideration of his nonmarital real estate and the debt associated with that property. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in concluding that the 401(k) plan was marital property; and (2) any error in the manner of the court's consideration of the value of Husband's nonmarital real property was harmless. |
| |
| In re Application of J.M.M. |
| Court: Minnesota Supreme Court Docket: A17-1730 Opinion Date: January 22, 2020 Judge: David L. Lillehaug Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the conclusion of the district court that Mother had to notify her three children's biological father of her request to change the children's names, holding that where Mother was the only parent listed on her children's birth certificates and no one had been adjudicated as their father, Mother was the legal parent with authority to apply to change her children's names. At issue was the notice provision found in Minn. Stat. 259.10 relating to name-change applications on behalf of minors. The district court determined that the biological father had a legally recognized parent-child relationship with the eldest two children and was therefore entitled to notice of the name-change petitions. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Mother was the only legal parent of her three minor children the district court erred when it determined that the biological father was a "parent" under section 259.10. |
| |
| Aldinger v. Aldinger |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 ND 5 Opinion Date: January 23, 2020 Judge: Daniel J. Crothers Areas of Law: Family Law |
| James Aldinger appeals from a second amended judgment modifying his child support obligation for the child he has with Marcella Aldinger. In October 2010 the amended judgment was entered, ordering James to pay $427 in child support for the child. On April 17, 2019, the State moved to modify James' child support obligation, requesting an increase to $748 per month. On April 26, 2019, James answered, and filed a second answer on May 1, 2019, moving to dismiss the motion, and contending his employment changed and the State disregarded the change. The distict court modified the support order, calculating the correct child support for James' income was $701 per month. A second amended judgment was entered. James argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the district court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss the State’s motion to modify when it determined that different income calculations were appropriate. He also argued the court did not have jurisdiction to modify the child support obligation because he no longer lived in North Dakota and the court erred as a matter of law by applying the North Dakota child support guidelines. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the second amended judgment. |
| |
| Cook v. Cook |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 ND 11 Opinion Date: January 23, 2020 Judge: Daniel J. Crothers Areas of Law: Family Law |
| Chris and Anna Cook were divorced in 2016 under the terms of a stipulated judgment which awarded Anna residential responsibility for their minor children and granted Chris parenting time subject to certain conditions. Chris was also ordered to pay child support. Three months after judgment was entered, Chris was found in contempt for failing to comply with provisions of the divorce judgment and was ordered to pay Anna's attorney fees and costs. During summer 2018, Anna petitioned the juvenile court to terminate Chris' parental rights, but voluntarily dismissed the petition. Continued disagreements between the parties ultimately resulted in competing motions to hold the other in contempt. Chris appealed the denial of his request to hold Anna in contempt of court for violating the parties’ divorce judgment. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. |
| |
| Konkel v. Amb |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 ND 17 Opinion Date: January 23, 2020 Judge: Lisa K. Fair McEvers Areas of Law: Family Law |
| Blaine Konkel appealed an amended judgment entered after the district court denied his request to modify his parenting time with the child he has with Courtney Amb, and clarified the location of the parenting time exchanges. Konkel argued the district court erred by finding a material change in circumstances did not exist, and also by amending the parenting plan without finding a material change in circumstances. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. |
| |
| Presswood v. Runyan |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citation: 2020 ND 8 Opinion Date: January 23, 2020 Judge: Jon J. Jensen Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law |
| Warren Runyan appealed a judgment granting Heather Presswood’s request for divorce while reserving division of the parties’ property and allocation of the parties’ debt. Runyan argued the district court erred in granting the divorce because Presswood failed to file a brief in support of her motion and he was denied due process by the court’s failure to rule on his objection to Presswood’s motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding the judgment was not final and was not appealable. |
| |
| Thomas v. Thomas |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court Citations: 2019 ND 299, 2020 ND 18 Opinion Date: January 23, 2020 Judge: Lisa K. Fair McEvers Areas of Law: Family Law |
| Matthew and SummerLee Thomas were married in 2008 and had two children, H.M.T. and C.M.T. In 2018, a divorce was initiated and following trial in February 2019, the district court issued a judgment, granting the parties joint residential responsibility of the children. Matthew appealed the judgment and argued the court erred in applying the best interest factors. Matthew argued factors (a) and (c) were not supported by the evidence. He also argued the court erred in applying factor (j) by not applying a pattern of domestic violence. He additionally argued the court erred by failing to include all of the stipulated parenting plan or make findings that the terms were not in the children’s best interests. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the court’s finding on factors (a) and (c), but remanded with instructions for the court to further specify its reasoning on factor (j) and to include the stipulated parenting plan or make findings that the terms were not in the best interests of the children. After the district court made amended findings and conclusions in accordance with the instructions, Matthew appealed again, arguing there were additional errors in the amended findings and conclusions. The Supreme Court affirmed, as modified, with instructions. |
| |
| Duke v. Duke |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court Citation: 2020 OK 6 Opinion Date: January 22, 2020 Judge: James E. Edmondson Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law |
| A husband and wife each requested sole custody of their minor child during divorce proceedings. Trial was held and following a hearing, sole custody of the parties' minor child was awarded to the father. Mother appealed. After review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found the parties had an opportunity at trial to present their evidence and make a complete trial court record and a complete appellate record. But Mother failed to preserve her challenge to the trial court's conclusion it was in the child's best interests for custody to be awarded to Father. Therefore, the district court's judgment was affirmed. |
| |
| In the Interest of: N.B.-A. |
| Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Docket: 11 EAP 2019 Opinion Date: January 22, 2020 Judge: Debra McCloskey Todd Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law |
| At issue was whether the evidence presented against mother E.A. was sufficient to establish she was a perpetrator of child abuse under the Child Protective Services Law ("CPSL"). In 2016, Mother presented to a Philadelphia emergency room with her six year old daughter, N.B.-A. ("Child"). Mother reported that Child had been experiencing vaginal discharge for three days. In response to questions by hospital staff, Mother indicated that she had no concerns that Child may have been sexually abused. Lab testing of the vaginal swabs revealed that Child had chlamydia, a sexually-transmitted infection. Although Mother told hospital staff no males lived in the home, Child stated that she lived with Mother, Grandmother, and three adult male “uncles.” In actuality, the males were Mother’s husband and Mother’s two stepsons. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the evidence in this case was insufficient to establish Mother abused her child: "Applying the Section 6381(d) presumption to cases such as the one before us, where DHS presented no evidence that Mother was or should have been aware that Stepbrother posed a risk to Child, or that he or anyone else was abusing Child, would essentially allow a parent to be deemed a perpetrator of child abuse by omission in every case where a child is abused, placing the burden on the parent to prove that they had no reason to believe that their child was at risk." |
| |
| Thompson v. Thompson |
| Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Docket: 36 WAP 2018 Opinion Date: January 22, 2020 Judge: Donohue Areas of Law: Family Law |
| At issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was whether the Superior Court erred in holding a suspended sentence imposed upon appellee Ashley Thompson for civil contempt of a child support order was illegal because suspended sentences were not authorized by the Domestic Relations Code section 4345. The Supreme Court determined a suspended sentence was not a legal sanction for contempt of a support order, thus affirming the Superior Court. |
| |
| In re H.T. & M.L. |
| Court: Vermont Supreme Court Citation: 2020 VT 3 Opinion Date: January 17, 2020 Judge: Eaton Areas of Law: Family Law |
| Parents appealed the termination of their rights in M.L., born in 2014, and H.T., born in 2015, following a long-delayed initial disposition hearing. They argued the trial court: (1) committed plain error in accepting their stipulation that the children were in need of care or supervision (CHINS); (2) violated their due process rights by delays in the proceedings; and (3) erred in concluding that they would not be able to parent the children within a reasonable time. While the delay in the initial disposition hearing meant the court did not have to find stagnation in order to terminate the parents’ residual parental rights, the court made findings that supported termination. Contrary to parents’ assertion, the Vermont Supreme Court found the trial court did not “ignore the injustices that were apparent to service providers, expert witnesses and the GALs.” Instead, the Supreme Court determined the trial court applied the law and evaluated, based on the evidence, whether terminating parents’ rights would be in the children’s best interests. “While parents disagree with the court’s conclusion, they fail to show error.” |
| |
| Wrigley v. Washington |
| Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 96830-6 Opinion Date: January 23, 2020 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Family Law, Government & Administrative Law |
| Jessica Wrigley brought a negligent investigation claim against the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) based on the placement of her son, A.A., with his biological father, Anthony Viles, during dependency hearings. Within three months of the placement, Viles killed A.A. The superior court dismissed Wrigley’s claim on summary judgment, finding the duty to investigate was never triggered. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the “trigger” was Wrigley’s prediction that Viles would harm A.A. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding a report predicting future abuse absent evidence of current or past conduct of abuse or neglect did not invoke a duty to investigate under RCW 26.44.050. |
| |
| Linden v. Linden |
| Court: Wyoming Supreme Court Citation: 2020 WY 9 Opinion Date: January 22, 2020 Judge: Gray Areas of Law: Family Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's petition to modify alimony payments to Mother, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Father was voluntarily underemployed and in refusing to modify alimony. When Mother and Father divorced, the parties stipulated to a split custody arrangement. The district court ordered Father to pay child support of $1740 per month and monthly alimony of $1800 for five years. After Father was terminated from his job, Father filed a pro se petition to modify alimony. The district court denied Father's petition, finding that Father was voluntarily underemployed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father's petition to modify alimony payments. |
| |
