From: "Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries" <notifications@justia.info>
Date: Jun 29, 2012 7:09 AM
Subject: Family Law Summaries Distributed June 29, 2012
To: "C Sturm" <colbydenver@gmail.com>
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add notifications@justia.info to your address book.
 |  |
Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.com
Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.
You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.
Today on Verdict
Why Chief Justice Roberts Dared Not Overturn President Obama's Healthcare Plan
Justia columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean comments on Chief Judge John Roberts's role in the Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare. Read Article
Weekly Opinion Summaries
Family Law
- Tea, Guardian Ad Litem, on Behalf of A.T. and S.T.
Family Law, Government & Administrative Law
Alaska Supreme Court - Clark v. Clark
Family Law
Delaware Supreme Court - In re A.B.
Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Family Law
Iowa Supreme Court - Marriage of King
Family Law
Montana Supreme Court - Marriage of Lloyd
Family Law
Montana Supreme Court - Matter of C.J.M. and A.J.M.
Family Law, Government & Administrative Law
Montana Supreme Court - Miller v. Nelson-Miller
Family Law
Ohio Supreme Court
| Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia | |
Tea, Guardian Ad Litem, on Behalf of A.T. and S.T.
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
| Docket: S-14200 | Opinion Date: June 22, 2012 |
Judge: Winfree
Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law
Eight days after relinquishing her parental rights to twin children, their mother filed a motion requesting that the superior court order the Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services (OCS) to release the children's annual Permanent Fund Dividends (dividends) to her. The superior court granted the motion. The guardian ad litem (GAL) and OCS opposed her motion. The superior court ordered OCS to provide proof of compliance with 15 AAC 23.223(i). OCS filed copies of the address change forms and an affidavit of the OCS employee who completed the forms stating OCS had complied with the Department's regulation. The superior court concluded OCS's filing did not comply with the regulation's "evidence of the change in legal custody" requirement and ordered OCS to release the dividends to the mother. The GAL sought reconsideration, which the superior court denied. The Supreme Court granted the GAL's petition for review. OCS and the GAL argued that the fact the Department paid the dividends to OCS suggests the Department itself thought the change of address forms were sufficient to comply with 15 AAC 23.223(i) and the superior court should have deferred to the Department's determination. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed: the superior court (and all of the parties in the superior court proceeding) knew of OCS's custody of the children because the superior court itself signed the custody order. "There was and could be no dispute that OCS actually was entitled to redirect and hold the children's dividends, regardless of the information provided to the Department." The Court reversed the superior court's decision.
| http://j.st/mtd |  |
| View Case on: Justia Google Scholar |
Clark v. Clark
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
| Docket: 547, 2012 | Opinion Date: June 28, 2012 |
Judge: Steele
Areas of Law: Family Law
Scott and Vanessa Clark married on July 23, 2003 and had two children. After Father and Mother separated, Mother sought sole custody of the children. The trial judge gave joint custody to Mother and Father. Mother raised three arguments on appeal of that decision: (1) joint custody is improper because Father was subject to an order of guardianship, (2) the findings of fact in the best interests of the child analysis were clearly erroneous, and (3) the delayed implementation of the final order constituted error. "Although this [was] a close abuse of discretion case," after its review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
| http://j.st/sg5 | |
| View Case on: Justia Google Scholar |
In re A.B.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
| Docket: 120133 | Opinion Date: June 22, 2012 |
Judge: Mansfield
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Family Law
A juvenile court terminated Father's parental rights to his two children. Father appealed, arguing, among other things, that the juvenile court violated his due process rights when it ordered him to provide a fingernail drug test after his termination trial. The court of appeals reversed, principally on the basis that there was no evidence in the record as to the reliability or the accuracy of the fingernail drug test, and that the record, including the fingernail test, lacked clear and convincing evidence to warrant termination of Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court, holding (1) the test did not violate Father's due process rights; (2) the evidence including the fingernail test was sufficient to warrant termination; and (3) termination was in the children's best interests.
| http://j.st/mv4 | |
| View Case on: Justia Google Scholar |
Marriage of King
Court: Montana Supreme Court
| Docket: DA 11-0732 | Opinion Date: June 26, 2012 |
Judge: Baker
Areas of Law: Family Law
The district court entered a decree in 2011 dissolving the marriage of Petitioner Aylynn King (Aly) and Joseph King (Joe) and establishing a parenting plan with respect to their two-and-a-half-year-old child, B.K. Aly challenged: (1) the District Court's denial of her request to change the child's surname to Matté, the surname that was restored to Aly after the dissolution, and (2) the parenting plan, which provides that B.K. will reside with Joe two days a week during most of the year, and five to seven days a week for about six weeks each summer. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no basis upon which to reverse the district court's decisions in this case, and affirmed the court's decisions.
| http://j.st/sSA | |
| View Case on: Justia Google Scholar |
Marriage of Lloyd
Court: Montana Supreme Court
| Docket: DA 11-0567 | Opinion Date: June 26, 2012 |
Judge: Wheat
Areas of Law: Family Law
Davie Lin Lloyd (Davie) appealed a Parenting Plan Order entered by the district court. Davie and Brett Camaron Lloyd (Brett) were married in 1997, and are the parents of one minor child, M.K.L. In 2004, the district court issued a decree of dissolution and parenting plan, which awarded Davie residential custody and included an attorney's fees provision. After the dissolution, Davie moved with M.K.L. from Texas to Oklahoma to Kentucky, and finally, to Florida. In the summer of 2009, the parties' communication disintegrated when they disagreed over Brett's summer visitation and as a result, M.K.L. never visited Brett that summer. Due to this communication breakdown, Brett initiated legal proceedings in Montana to enforce the parenting plan. The district court held a hearing on the parenting issues in 2011 and issued its order. The Order gave Brett residential custody of M.K.L., and included a provision requiring that for each vacation M.K.L. would be transferred to the parent with visitation rights on the evening of the last day of school before the break and would remain with that parent until the evening before school would resume. Brett filed a request that the District Court enforce the attorney's fees provision in the 2004 Parenting Plan and award Brett his attorney's fees. The District Court approved that request on August 16, 2011, and on August 24, 2011, Davie filed an M. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment awarding attorney's fees. Counsel for Brett submitted an affidavit containing a statement of attorney's fees on August 29, 2011, to which Davie did not object. On September 21, 2011, the District Court denied Davie's motion and approved the amount of the fees. Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to award attorney's fees, the Supreme Court affirmed.
| http://j.st/sSs | |
| View Case on: Justia Google Scholar |
Matter of C.J.M. and A.J.M.
Court: Montana Supreme Court
| Docket: DA 12-0047 | Opinion Date: June 26, 2012 |
Judge: Wheat
Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law
I.M. (Father) appealed a district court order that terminated his parental rights to his children A.J.M (daughter) and C.J.M. (son). The children's biological mother already had her parental rights to terminated. The Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) contacted the family and made recommendations, but the parents did not follow through. Father reported Mother to DPHHS in July of 2009 with concerns about her drinking and inability to care for the children. After Father's call, the children were removed. Upon stipulations by both Mother and Father, the children were adjudicated Youths in Need of Care on August 14, 2009. The District Court found that: 1) termination was statutorily presumed to be in both A.J.M.'s and C.J.M.'s best interest due to the length of time each had been in foster care; 2) Father's treatment plans were appropriate; 3) Father did not comply with the treatment plans; 4) the conditions rendering Father unfit or unable to parent would not likely change within a reasonable amount of time, and 5) the best interests of A.J.M. and C.J.M. would indeed be served by termination of Father's parental rights. Father then appealed. Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights.
| http://j.st/sSn | |
| View Case on: Justia Google Scholar |
Miller v. Nelson-Miller
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
| Docket: 2011-1172 | Opinion Date: June 27, 2012 |
Judge: McGee Brown
Areas of Law: Family Law
Appellant, Rebecca Nelson-Miller, as administrator of the estate of Norman Miller, cross-appealed from a decision of the court of appeals that held that the 2005 agreed judgment entry of divorce between Norman and cross-appellee, Beth Miller, was void for noncompliance with Ohio R. Civ. P. 58(A) due to the trial court's improper delegation of its judgment-entry signatory duties to a magistrate. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the trial court's 2005 judgment entry decree of divorce, holding (1) where a court possesses jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, mechanical irregularities regarding the trial court's signature render the judgment voidable not void; (2) therefore, the trial court's noncompliance with the signature requirement of Rule 58(A) caused the 2005 judgment entry to be merely voidable; and (3) because neither party sought any timely objection or appeal from the 2005 divorce decree, Appellee's attempted collateral attack on the trial court's voidable judgment entry in 2009 was untimely and improper.
| http://j.st/spe | |
| View Case on: Justia Google Scholar |
 Forward to a Friend Have friends who like law? Forward this email. |  Find Us on Facebook Like Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook. |  Follow Us on Twitter Follow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter. |
| Justia.com Free Legal Information Portal | www.Justia.com |
| Federal & State Case Law, Codes & Regs | Law.Justia.com |
| US Federal Case Filings & Dockets | Dockets.Justia.com |
| Daily Opinion Summaries | Daily.Justia.com |
You received this email because you have subscribed to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries. You can subscribe to summaries for US Courts, including the US Supreme Court, all US Courts of Appeals and some US state courts.
Visit the Justia Daily Opinion Summaries page to add, edit or remove subscriptions.
If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at notifications@justia.info.
| Unsubscribe From This Newsletter | or unsubscribe colbydenver@gmail.com immediately here. |
"Justia" is a registered trademark of Justia Inc.
Justia • Justia, Inc. 1380 Pear Ave Suite 2B Mountain View, CA 94043
| Have a Happy Day! | Hug the Pug | © 2011, Justia Inc. |
No comments:
Post a Comment