Child Custody - Contempt – Transportation Expenses
Fortner v. Bracher, No. 2023‑CP‑00664‑COA (Mississippi Court of Appeals, September 3, 2024): Transportation of divorce judgment required the father to “bear all transportation expense.” The father, instead of transporting the child paying for the transportation expenses, refused to return the child on multiple occasions, and argued that while he was responsible for transportation expense, he could require the mother to transport the child to visitation exchanges and then present the father with transportation receipts for reimbursement. Held: C’mon. The judgment stated nothing about a reimbursement procedure or reimbursable expenses, and the transportation provision was not ambiguous and required the father to “pick up and return the child.”
Child Custody - Modification – Change in Circumstances
Richard CC. v. Lacey DD., No. CV‑22‑2188, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 04421 (New York Supeme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, September 12, 2024): Failure of both the mother and father, who shared physical custody of children, to initiate nightly phone calls with children and the parent who did not have parenting time that night, as required by child custody consent order, constituted change in circumstances necessary to warrant modification of child custody order. Seems harsh, no? But it’s really about the failure of the parents to communicate effectively for shared custody.
Child Custody - Presumptions - Split Custody
Robinson v. Robinson, No. CL‑2024‑0074 (Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, September 6, 2024): Alabama used to have a presumption that splitting siblings was bad, i.e., that separating siblings in a divorce proceeding be supported by a compelling reason for doing so. No more: the best‑interest standard applies to each child. Here, there was sufficient evidence that the trial court's judgment awarding custody of the daughter to the mother and custody of the son to the father was in the best interests of the children.
Child Support - Income - Vested Restricted Stock
Merrill v. Merrill, No. 20210785‑CA, 2024 UT App 125 (Utah Court of Appeals, September 6, 2024): Trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that husband's monthly gross income was $27,708, which included vested restricted stock, in proceeding for divorce. The value of the vested stock that husband was anticipated to receive from employer fell within statutory definition of gross income, gross income included bonuses and gifts, which could take the form of vested stock. Although the actual future value could end up being different from the amount predicted, the husband could request a modification of alimony and child support orders when there was a substantial change between his future income as anticipated and his future income as it turned out to be, and husband failed to demonstrate inequity resulting from inclusion of his stock as part of his gross income.
Child Support - Adult Disabled Child – Obligation to Support
In re Marriage of Cady and Gamick, No. B326716 (California Court of Appeals, Second District, Division 1, September 25, 2024): Sometimes you just gotta wonder, what is wrong with you? Father, who earned between $2 and $3 million per year, argued that he did not have to pay to support his adult disabled child because the child received Supplement Security Benefits of $12,600 per year. Held: The statute providing that no relative shall be held legally liable to support a government aid recipient did not insulate the father from his legal responsibility to help financially support disabled adult son simply because son was receiving SSI and state SSP benefits. The welfare statute operated only to protect the father from lawsuit by state government actors for recoupment of the SSI/SSP paid to his son.
Procedure - Service – Defective Service - Void Judgment
Tuminski v. Norlin, No. COA24‑15 (North Carolina Court of Appeals, September 3, 2024).
Ex‑husband collaterally attacked an underlying judgment of absolute divorce, seeking to set aside judgment on grounds that the parties had not met one‑year separation requirement prior to filing, through independent action seeking to set aside judgment, rather than through a motion in the cause in the divorce action. This, held the Court of Appeals, was improper, because the judgment would have been voidable rather than void ab initio. Further, the ex‑husband had appointed an agent and admittedly received effective service of process through that agent, meaning exception for party to divorce prevented from presenting his case by an improper service of process did not apply.
Spousal Support - Income – Earning Capacity
Jewell v. Brewer, No. Pen‑23‑383, 2024 ME 70 (Maine Supreme Court, September 17, 2024). Evidence was not sufficient to support trial court's finding that ex‑husband satisfied his burden of proving a change in ex‑wife's earning capacity so as to warrant modification of spousal support award that was entered in divorce judgment. There was insufficient evidence that ex‑wife could find work in the post‑pandemic labor market because of her disabilities, and although court found ex‑wife not to be credible with respect to her current earning capacity, ex‑husband offered no evidence regarding what work was available to ex‑wife or what she could earn, and ex‑wife's lack of credibility did not relieve ex‑husband of obligation to prove through evidence that ex‑wife's earning capacity had changed since trial court order denying ex‑husband's first motion to modify spousal support.
NEW LAW REVIEW ARTICLES OF INTEREST
- Ariel J. Adler, New Get Laws, Prenups, and Social Media Shaming: a Grassroots Social Media Movement's Proposals to Assist Women in Jewish Divorce, 23 Rutgers J. L. & Religion 1 (2024‑2025)
- Jeremiah A. Ho, Second‑Tier Marriages, 68 St. Louis U. L.J. 835 (Summer 2024)
- Douglas Laycock, Thomas C. Berg, and Robin Fretwell Wilson, The Respect for Marriage Act: Living Together Despite Our Deepest Differences, 2024 U. Ill. L. Rev. 511 (2024)
- Lindsay Saligman, Subsidiarity and the Best Interests of the Child, 25 Chi. J. Int'l L. 259 (Summer 2024)
- Rachel Yost, The Indian Child Welfare Act, Political Classification of "Indians," and Preservation of Tribal Sovereignty: Children, the Most Precious Resource, 48 Am. Indian L. Rev. 43 (2023‑2024)
