If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries

Family Law
March 5, 2021

Table of Contents

Cherry v. Cherry

Family Law

Arkansas Supreme Court

In re I.R.

Family Law

California Courts of Appeal

J.P. v. V.B.

Family Law

Supreme Court of Indiana

Coulter v. Dunn

Family Law

Supreme Court of Mississippi

BJ v. KM

Family Law

Wyoming Supreme Court

Bruce v. Bruce

Family Law

Wyoming Supreme Court

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Why the Supreme Court was Right Last Week to Deny Review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decisions Handed Down Prior to the 2020 Election

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

verdict post

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone argue that the U.S. Supreme Court correctly denied review last week of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions handed down before the 2020 election. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone explain why the majority denied review and point out that the dissenting opinions unwittingly demonstrate the rightness of the majority.

Read More

Family Law Opinions

Cherry v. Cherry

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Citation: 2021 Ark. 49

Opinion Date: March 4, 2021

Judge: Webb

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree that awarded Rhonda Marlene Cherry permanent alimony and a subsequent order that found William Cherry in contempt for failing to pay the full amount of alimony ordered, holding that the circuit court did not err. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion by not reducing or eliminating the amount of alimony that Rhonda was to receive; (2) did not clearly err in holding William in contempt; (3) did not clearly err in finding that annuities from a personal injury settlement were not divisible as marital property; and (4) did not err in failing to order William to purchase a life insurance policy.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

In re I.R.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B307093(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 2, 2021

Judge: Frances Rothschild

Areas of Law: Family Law

After a domestic violence incident between mother and father that was witnessed by the children, DCFS started dependency proceedings on behalf of both children. The juvenile court found jurisdiction over the children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and ordered I.R. removed from father and released to mother. The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence does not support either of the findings necessary to justify removal under section 361, subdivision (c)(1). In this case, the record does not contain substantial evidence that I.R. would be in "substantial danger" in father's care, nor does it contain substantial evidence that there were no "reasonable means" to protect I.R. other than removing her from father. Given the lack of any connection between drug use and the domestic violence underlying the petition, the court concluded that the juvenile court was acting within its discretion in denying I.R.'s request that mother submit to more extensive drug testing. Accordingly, the court reversed the dispositional order against father and remanded.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

J.P. v. V.B.

Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Docket: 21S-AD-00090

Opinion Date: March 2, 2021

Judge: Goff

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court finding that Mother's consent was not required for the adoption of her child, holding that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's determinations. The trial court granted Stepmother's petition for stepparent adoption of Child, finding that Mother's consent was unnecessary because she had failed to pay child support for more than one year, failed significantly to communicate with Child for more than one year, and had abandoned Child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the court's findings that Mother for one year failed significantly to communicate with Child and support Child when able to do so.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Coulter v. Dunn

Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi

Citation: 2019-CA-01805-SCT

Opinion Date: March 4, 2021

Judge: Michael K. Randolph

Areas of Law: Family Law

D.G.E.C. was born on June 1, 2016. Her biological parents were Rachel Coulter and Cody Jones. Coulter and Jones never married. On the evening of August 6, 2016, Jones took the nine-week-old baby to a room in their two-bedroom trailer to change her diaper. He noticed that her leg appeared limp. He told Coulter “her leg flopped over like it had no life in it” and expressed concern that it was broken. Eventually, Coulter and Jones took the baby to an emergency room. Coulter suggested that the baby might be suffering due to a reaction to her first round of vaccinations received three days earlier. X-rays of the leg revealed that it was fractured. The baby was transferred to University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) for further evaluation and treatment. Upon admission to UMMC, medical professionals identified bruising to the baby’s forehead and cheek, acute posterior rib fractures on both sides of her chest, lateral rib fractures, an intertrochanteric femur fracture or hip fracture, corner fractures above and below both knees, and left ankle fractures. Given the baby’s medical condition upon admission, a UMMC social worker contacted the Jefferson Davis County Department of Human Services (DHS) to report the injuries. Coulter appealed a chancery court judgment terminating her parental rights. She challenged the chancellor’s finding of fact that she was the custodial parent of her daughter when her daughter was abused, and its conclusion of law that responsibility for abuse can be imputed to custodial parents. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s findings of fact, finding the judgment was supported by "ample evidence as is legally sound."

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

BJ v. KM

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Citation: 2021 WY 37

Opinion Date: February 26, 2021

Judge: Gray

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court holding that BJ lacked standing bring his petition to establish paternity and dismissing the petition, holding that a man claiming to be the biological father of a child has standing to bring a paternity action when the child has a legally presumed father. Mother gave birth to Child while married to CM, Child's presumed father. Another man, BJ, claimed to be Child's father and brought this action seeking to establish paternity. The district court concluded that BJ lacked standing under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-802 and dismissed his petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) BJ was a "man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated" under section 14-2-802(a)(iii); and (2) therefore, BJ had standing to bring his petition to establish paternity even where CM was legally presumed to be Child's father.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Bruce v. Bruce

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Citation: 2021 WY 38

Opinion Date: March 4, 2021

Judge: Boomgaarden

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in all respects the district court's findings, conclusions, and decree of divorce in the proceedings between Father and Mother, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Mother physical custody of the parties' two children and in determining the child support award. After trial, the court entered its findings, conclusions, and decree of divorce. The decree awarded Mother physical custody, granting Father standard visitation rights, and ordered to pay Father child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Mother physical custody; and (2) the district court properly exercised its discretion in weighing the Wyo. Code Ann. 20-2-307(b) factors and in determining Father's child support obligation accordingly.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 63 different newsletters, each covering a different practice area.

Justia also provides 68 daily jurisdictional newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043