FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Family Law

In re Marriage of Hartman

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Family Law) Trial court's denial of wife's motion to vacate an order restraining her from interfering with ex-husband's child custody time is affirmed as the restraining order is neither ambiguous nor overbroad.

In re Kyle E.

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Family Law, Juvenile Law) In juvenile dependency proceedings, the juvenile court's visitation order is reversed and remanded as it unlawfully delegated the responsibility of whether or not the father's visitation would occur at all to the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services.

Elliot v. Carcieri

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Constitutional Law, Family Law, Government Law) In a class action lawsuit on behalf of foster care children who are under the legal custody of Rhode Island's Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), claiming that systematic deficiencies in the state's child welfare and foster care systems deprived the plaintiffs of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes, district court's judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Next Friends lacked capacity to sue on behalf of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that the state appointed guardians ad litem or CASA advocates precluded plaintiffs from filing suit by a Next Friend; 2) under the circumstances of the case, Rule 17(c) allows federal courts discretion to appoint a Next Friend to represent the children in federal court; and 3) the proposed Next Friends are suited to represent the children in this case.

Estate of Charania v. Shulman

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Family Law, Probate, Trusts & Estates, Tax Law) In a tax deficiency case, the judgment of the tax court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the tax court's judgment that all of the Citigroup shares were the separate property of the decedent for federal estate tax purposes and, thus, were includable in his gross taxable estate is affirmed, as the rule of De Nicols is that a change in marital domicile does not, in itself, effect a change in the marital property regime governing the spouses' rights in personal property acquired throughout the course of the marriage; but 2) the tax court's approbation of the late-filing penalty was in error and is therefore reversed.

US v. Novak

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 4th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Family Law) A conviction under 18 U.S.C. section 228(a)(3) for willfully failing to pay child support is affirmed over two challenges to the district court's jury instructions on venue where: 1) the district court did not err when it defined "resided" as "the act or fact of living in a given place permanently or for an extended period of time," and the evidence was sufficient, for purposes of venue, to establish that defendant resided in the Eastern District of Virginia during the time period alleged in the indictment; and 2) even assuming the district court's instruction was erroneous, defendant could not show any harm.

In re D.R.

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal. App., Family Law, Juvenile Law) In the County Social Services Agency's appeal from a juvenile court's order denying the agency's motion to terminate the de facto parent status of respondent, and granting the application of respondent's partner for de facto parent status, the order is affirmed where: 1) the juvenile court had the authority to determine that respondent's conduct constituted serious physical abuse, but conclude that the single incident of misconduct found to have occurred did not rise to the level warranting termination of his de facto parent status; and 2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate respondent's de facto parent status.

G.R. v. Intelligator

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Family Law, Injury And Tort Law) In an attorney's special motion to strike plaintiff's complaint, arising from her representation of plaintiff's ex-wife in postmarital dissolution proceedings, trial court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) attorney's filing a copy of plaintiff's credit report in support of a motion was protected petitioning activity; 2) plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating probability of success on his claims; and 3) plaintiff failed to show either that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the attorney fees and costs or that it erred in denying his motion for reconsideration.

Fields v. Fields

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(N.Y., Family Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In a divorce action, the appellate division's order affirming the trial court's equitable distribution order is affirmed where the husband's one-half interest in the parties' residence -- a Manhattan townhouse that the husband purchased during the marriage and where the parties had lived for nearly thirty years -- was marital property.

In re Marriage of Jill & Victor D.

Wed, 9 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Family Law, Juvenile Law) Juvenile court's judgment terminating a father's parental rights so the minors could be adopted by their stepfather is affirmed where: 1) the court properly held that the circumstances by which the minors' mother initially assumed sole physical custody of them was irrelevant to the determination whether the father left the minors within the meaning of the statutory scheme; and 2) the father's claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that he left the minors for one year with the intent to abandon them during that time is rejected.

Lantz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Tue, 8 Jun 2010 20:00:04 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Family Law, Tax Law) Tax Court's judgment invalidating the two-year deadline that the Treasury has imposed on claims under section 6015(f), and thus reversing the IRS's denial of a taxpayer's application for innocent-spouse relief, is reversed as the fact that Congress designated a deadline in two provisions of the same statute and not in a third is not a compelling argument that Congress meant to preclude the Treasury Department from imposing a deadline applicable to cases governed by that third provision.

In re A.O.

Fri, 28 May 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal. App., Criminal Law & Procedure, Family Law, Juvenile Law) Juvenile court's order on a supplemental petition terminating a home of parent order and removing father's daughter from his care after his arrest and incarceration is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that the previous home of parent order was no longer effective to protect the daughter; and 2) a basis to avoid the assertion of dependency court jurisdiction over a child under section 300(g) -- an incarcerated parent's making an appropriate arrangement for the care of the child by a relative or friend -- is inapplicable to a supplemental petition under section 387 because section 300(g) deals with the initial imposition of dependency court jurisdiction over a child, which is not at issue on a section 387 petition to terminate a home of parent order.

In re Maria R.

Thu, 27 May 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Family Law) In dependency proceeding, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that the mother's husband sexually abused the two oldest daughters within the meaning of section 300(d) and another daughter was at substantial risk of being sexually abused within the meaning of section 300(j); 2) there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that returning the children to the home would pose a substantial danger to their physical health, safety or well-being; 3) with respect to the son, there is not substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that he was at substantial risk of being sexually abused under section 300(j); however 4) the matter is remanded as to the son as section 300(j) does not limit the grounds of dependency adjudication for a child whose sibling has been abused to the same subdivision of section 300 that applies to that sibling, as the plain language of section 300(j) directs the trial court to consider whether there is a substantial risk that the subject child will be abused or neglected.

Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Dep't of Children & Family Serv.

Wed, 26 May 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Family Law, Government Law, Juvenile Law) In a suit brought by plaintiff-mother on behalf of herself and her minor children claiming that her constitutional rights were violated when social workers, aided by police officers, entered her home by force and removed her children, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) the district court correctly ruled that all of plaintiff's claims are time barred; but 2) the claims by the children are not barred by Rooker-Feldman as their claims do not seek review or reversal of the decision of the juvenile court to award temporary custody to the state, but instead focus on the conduct of Family Services and of the social workers that led up to the juvenile court's decision to award temporary custody to the county.

S.M. v. E.P.

Tue, 25 May 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Family Law, Remedies) In plaintiff's paternity and custody suit, (1) plaintiff's concession to the Iowa court's exercising jurisdiction over his paternity and custody dispute with the defendant renders moot his appeal from the trial court's minute order deferring jurisdiction over the custody dispute to an Iowa court; but (2) the trial court's restraining order is reversed because the court abused its discretion in issuing the restraining order against plaintiff because in issuing the order, the court misapplied the statutory requirements and misapprehended the legal effect of the order.

In re Amber M.

Mon, 24 May 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Family Law) In an appeal from the trial court's denial of petitioner's request for a stay of dependency proceedings involving his two children under section 522(b) of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the order is reversed where (1) liberally construing petitioner's application for a stay, it met the requirements of section 522(b) or at minimum substantially complied with the requirements of section 522(b); and 2) assuming it did not meet the requirements of section 522(b), the court abused its discretion in denying a stay.