Update on Trump’s Coup: Do Not Think That This Is Guaranteed to End Well

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan explains why “being patient with Trump” is a recipe for disaster, why there are still reasons to be guardedly optimistic, and why this all could still end very badly. Buchanan argues that the present situation is not guaranteed end badly, but he cautions that a Trump coup is eminently possible.

Read More

In re M.F.

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Docket: 117301

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Carol A. Beier

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court held that the same-sex romantic partner of a woman who conceives through artificial insemination and gives birth during the couple's relationship can be recognized as a legal parent under the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) when the birth mother has consented to shared parenting at the time of the child's birth. K.L., the same-sex partner in this case, sought judicial recognition of her legal parentage relationship with the child. The district court judge ruled that K.L. had no parental rights. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that K.L. can be recognized as a legal parent through use of Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2208(a)(4) if K.L. can demonstrate that she notoriously recognized her maternity and the rights and duties attendant to it at the time of the child's birth.

In re W.L.

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Docket: 119536

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Carol A. Beier

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court held in this case, as in In re M.F., 312 Kan. __ (this day decided), that the same-sex romantic partner of a woman who conceives through artificial insemination and gives birth during the couple's relationship can be recognized as a legal parent under the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA) even if the couple has not entered into a coparenting agreement. M.S., the same-sex partner here, sought judicial recognition of her legal parentage relationship with the child. The district court judge denied parentage of M.S. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that M.S. can be recognized as a legal parent through use of Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-2208(a)(4) if M.S. can demonstrate that she notoriously recognized her maternity and the rights and duties attendant to it at the time of the child's birth.

Quirk v. Quirk

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2020 ME 132

Opinion Date: November 10, 2020

Judge: Connors

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding almost $400,000 in this action to enforce a divorce judgment, holding that the trial court's factual findings were supported by competent evidence. In 2018, Frances Quirk filed a motion to enforce her divorce judgment from 1973. Quirk alleged that John Quirk, her ex-husband, was obligated to pay her forty-five dollars weekly in spousal support and owed her $97,875 in arrears. John asserted laches as an affirmative defense. The court awarded Frances spousal support, interest, and attorney fees, finding that John had not made payments since 1977, that Frances had not pursued the payments because of John's threatening behavior, and that John had not been prejudiced by Frances's delay in enforcing the obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) John's laches defense failed; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the full amount of post-judgment interest to Frances; (3) the statutory presumption of satisfaction was overcome in this case; and (4) the court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Frances all of her attorney fees.

Benjamin M. v. Jeri S.

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 307 Neb. 733

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Funke

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court dismissing Benjamin M.'s amended complaint seeking to establish custody, support, and parenting time, holding that the district court erred in failing to give proper legal effect to the two notarized acknowledgments of paternity Benjamin filed contemporaneously with his amended complaint. Benjamin and Jeri were the parents of two minor children, F.M. and L.M. The parents executed notarized acknowledgments of paternity for each child. Benjamin later filed a complaint seeking to establish paternity, child support, and parenting time. Jeri moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Thereafter, Benjamin filed an amended complaint to establish child custody, child support, and parenting time and offered into evidence certified copies of the notarized acknowledgements of paternity for both children. The district court dismissed the case as being time-barred. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding (1) where there is a properly executed and unchallenged acknowledgment of paternity, an action for establishment of paternity should be treated solely as an action to determine the issues of custody and support; and (2) the district court erred in failing to give proper legal effect to the signed, notarized acknowledgments of paternity in this case.

Adoption of A.M.G., S.A.G., K.M.G. & J.C.C

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Dockets: 55 WAP 2019, 56 WAP 2019, 57 WAP 2019, 58 WAP 2019

Opinion Date: November 10, 2020

Judge: Max Baer

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered issues relating to appellate review of a trial court’s appointment of legal counsel under Section 2313(a) of the Adoption Act relating to whether, and how, an appellate court should review, sua sponte, appointed counsel’s representation of children’s legal interests in a termination of parental rights proceeding. Specifically, the Supreme Court addressed, inter alia, whether reviewing courts must determine sua sponte whether a conflict existed in an attorney’s representation of a child’s best interests and legal interests, and whether counsel’s advocacy for the child’s legal interests included placing the child’s preferred outcome on the record. Appellant T.L.G. (“Mother”) was the mother of four children: A.M.G., S.A.G., K.M.G., and J.C.C (collectively “the Children”). Children and Youth Services ("CYS") filed dependency petitions for all four children, citing the parents' inability to provide proper care, especially in regard to their medical care and school attendance. A termination of parental rights was held in 2018; the children had been placed with their paternal aunt and uncle who were willing to adopt them. Mother appealed termination of her parental rights, arguing the trial court erred in concluding CYS proved the grounds for termination. In addition, she raised her 2313(a) argument. The Supreme Court held that while an appellate court should verify the orphans' court appointed counsel to represent the child's legal interests, it could not assess, sua sponte, the performance of that representation. The Court affirmed the termination of parental rights in this case.

Peralta v. Brannan

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 VT 100

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Paul L. Reiber

Areas of Law: Family Law

Ashlie Brannan appealed a trial court’s determination that Ashton Peralta was a de facto parent of A.Z. pursuant to 15C V.S.A. 501. She argued the court erred both in denying her motion to dismiss and in evaluating the factors set forth in section 501(a). Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.

Hassan G. v. Tamra P.

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 19-0591

Opinion Date: November 6, 2020

Judge: Hutchison

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's order affirming the order of the family court refusing Petitioner's motion for a downward modification of his monthly child support obligation to Respondent for the benefit of their three children, holding that the circuit court erred in allowing the family court to refuse to modify the parenting plan and child support award on the basis of Respondent's higher income and the current custodial arrangement. Specifically, the Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the circuit court's order leaving unchanged the amount of income attributed to Petitioner in the parties' original child support order; but (2) reversed the portion of the circuit court's order failing to modify child support based upon the fact that two of the parties' children now reside with Petitioner and his family instead of Respondent and that Respondent's income had substantially increased since the entry of the child support order. The Court remanded this case for the family court to hold a hearing, make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding child support, and to enter a modified child support order in accordance with the provisions of this opinion.

In re B.A.

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 19-0921

Opinion Date: November 12, 2020

Judge: Walker

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court removing the child B.A. from the custody of Petitioners, foster parents, holding that the circuit court properly considered Petitioners' finances but that remand was required for a full analysis of the facts within the framework of the sibling preference contained in W. Va. Code 49-4-111(e) and the holding in In re Carol B., 550 S.E.2d 636 (W. Va. 2001). Petitioners had already adopted B.A.'s older sibling when B.A. was placed in their foster care. The guardian ad litem appointed to represent B.A. later discovered a number of liens and judgments against Petitioners, as well as more than $46,000 in unpaid child support. The guardian recommended that B.A. be removed from Petitioners' custody due to those issues. The circuit court directed that B.A. be removed from Petitioners' custody, finding that Petitioners would not meet the prerequisites to adopt the child under W. Va. Code 48-22-701(d). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in its apparent failure to place any weight on Petitioners' adoption of B.A.'s sibling and that Petitioners' home was the only home B.A. had ever known. The Court remanded the case for the circuit court to perform a best interests analysis making detailed consideration of the sibling preference.