Child Custody - Hague Convention - Grave Risk of Harm Defense
Navarro Parra v. Villalonga Camargo, No. 3:24‑cv‑1290‑L (United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division, April 2, 2025): Mother's allegations of widespread sexual abuse in facilities run by the Catholic Church, such as child's daycare, and general drug use by adolescents in Chile were insufficient to establish that child was at a grave risk of harm, so as to establish affirmative defense to wrongfully removed child's return under the Hague Convention.
Child Custody - UCCJEA - Forum Non Conveniens
Guerrero v. Santiago, No. 2023‑01880, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 02066 (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, April 9, 2025): The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that it should relinquish jurisdiction to New Jersey due to substantial changes in circumstances since July 2021. The child, who had moved with the mother to New Jersey in November 2020, had subsequently been diagnosed with stage‑four kidney cancer and was receiving ongoing medical treatment in New Jersey. The child had attended school in New Jersey for almost two years. Allegations of possible neglect or abuse of the child had been investigated by the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency. Additionally, in June 2022, the father voluntarily relocated to Florida, where he and other potential witnesses for his case continued to reside. Furthermore, given the impending retirement of the assigned Justice, the matter would proceed before a new judge, whether that was in New York or New Jersey. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction to a New Jersey court and dismissing the parties’ custody petitions.
Child Support - Income - Imputed Income
Jacobs v. Jacobs, No. 1 CA‑CV 24‑0293 FC, 145 Arizona Cases Digest 70 (Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, April 3, 2025): Superior court abused its discretion in finding that husband voluntarily left his employment due to differences with his boss, in determining whether to attribute income to husband for purposes of calculating child support award in marital dissolution proceeding. The record contained no evidence that husband left his job voluntarily, but rather, husband testified he was let go during seasonal terminations in the oil rig industry.
Child Support - Modification - Private Agreement
Lee v. Kalis, 19 N.W.3d 186 (Minnesota Supreme Court, April 9, 2025): Two principles that we all know, and we wish our clients knew: (1) An extrajudicial agreement purporting to modify father's child support obligation was invalid as a matter of law; only a court had power to modify child support order setting forth father's support obligation; (2) forgiveness of father's arrearages was an impermissible retroactive modification of child support order. Lesson: Tell your clients they can’t modify themselves, even if they think that’s going to save them money.
Divorce - Parties – Guardian of Person
Matter of Marriage of Benavides, No. 23‑0463 (Texas Supreme Court, April 25, 2025): As a matter of first impression, to whatever extent a court can authorize a guardian to pursue a divorce on the ward's behalf, the guardianship court must expressly find that granting such authority is in ward's best interest, and the court that grants the divorce must also make ultimate finding that the divorce sought by the guardian is in ward's best interest and will promote and protect ward's well‑being. Further, as matter of first impression, the failure of the trial court to make express findings, prior to granting divorce, that pursuing or granting divorce would be in husband's best interest and would promote his well‑being required vacation of the divorce decree and, due to husband's death after issuance of decree, dismissal of suit.
Concurrence
Intimate Partner Violence - Jurisdiction
Baum v. Aldava, No. 2024‑SC‑0182‑DGE (Kentucky Supreme Court, April 24, 2025): Petitioner's domicile in the Commonwealth of Kentucky creates a relationship to the state that is adequate for the exercise of state power to issue domestic violence protective order against a nonresident respondent over whom the court lacks personal jurisdiction. Thus, the family court's issuance of domestic violence protective order against nonresident father on petition filed by mother who had fled to Kentucky with child, which restrained father from engaging in further acts of domestic violence and abuse, from engaging in unauthorized contact or communication with mother and child, from coming closer than 500 feet of mother and child, from approaching their home, school or place of employment, and from disposing of or damaging their property did not violate father's right to due process, under “status” exception to due process requirements for personal jurisdiction over nonresident. The protective order did not impose any personal obligations on father and was designed to provide mother and child with protection that law allowed.
Parentage
Bagrii v. Campbell, No. Pen‑23‑294, 2025 ME 38 (Maine Supreme Judicial Court, April 29, 2025): Kateryna A. Bagrii appeals from a judgment dismissing for lack of standing, her complaint under the Maine Parentage Act seeking to establish herself as a de facto parent of two children whose biological parents are John P. Campbell and Jie Chen. As to standing, under the Maine Parentage Act, a court must determine, on the basis of the parties’ pleadings and affidavits, “whether the person seeking to be adjudicated a de facto parent has presented prima facie evidence of the requirements set forth in subsection 3.” One of those requirements is “C. A bonded and dependent relationship has been established between the child and the person, the relationship was fostered or supported by another parent of the child and the person and the other parent have understood, acknowledged or accepted that or behaved as though the person is a parent of the child”. Here, both Campbell and Chen appeared and argued and testified that they objected to Bagrii having status as a de facto parent. Bagrii therefore had to prove that both Campbell and Chen “understood, acknowledged or accepted that or behaved as though [she was] a parent of the child.” She had not satisfied her burden of proof as to Chen.
Sitler v. Jones, No. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, April 25, 2025): New rule: If a marriage is intact at the time that husband's paternity is challenged, the husband is presumed to be the father by virtue of the presumption of paternity. However, a third party challenger may rebut that presumption, and secure DNA testing that will determine paternity, by adducing clear and convincing evidence showing that: (1) there is a reasonable possibility that he is the father and (2) determining parentage based upon the results of DNA testing will serve the best interests of the child, with due consideration for the interests of the adults whose parental rights are at stake. Abrogating Strauser v. Stahr, 556 Pa. 83, 726 A.2d 1052; B.C. v. C.P., 310 A.3d 721. If, during course of proceedings challenging a husband's paternity, a court finds no threshold possibility of paternity, or determines that adjudicating paternity by DNA testing would disserve the relevant interests, then the presumption of paternity governs; however, if the court finds a threshold possibility of paternity, and determines that the balance of interests lies in assigning paternity based upon the biological truth, the presumption must yield, and the court should order appropriate genetic testing to determine paternity of the child.
A.D. v. K.S., 495 Mass. 727, 255 N.E.3d 1274 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, April 25, 2025): Child's mother filed complaints to establish biological father's paternity and rescind legal father's voluntary acknowledgment of parentage, which had been executed more than five years earlier. Following consolidation of the cases, and after testing confirmed biological father's identity as genetic parent, the trial rescinded the voluntary acknowledgment of parentage and adjudicated biological father as child's legal father. Biological father appealed. Held: Whoa, trial court. You can’t redetermine at this time the child’s parentage. Absent a substantial relationship between child and child's biological father, the trial court lacked equitable authority to redetermine child's parentage by rescinding child's legal father's voluntary acknowledgment of parentage The statutory periods to challenge acknowledgment of parentage had passed several years before mother filed complaints, and the applicable statute of repose evinced the legislature's public policy decision that a final determination of parentage served the best interests of a non-marital child.
News Items of Interest
- Tim Brouk, Purdue Expert: Overall Divorce Rates Lowest in Decades but Gray Divorce Soars (Purdue University, March 11, 2025)
- Sara Goldstein, After Getting Divorced, Two Best Friends Moved in Together—to Raise Six Kids under One Roof (Motherly, April 28, 2025). (Ed. Note: Has no one heard of Kate and Allie?)
- Jerusalem Demsas, The New Divide in American Marriage (The Atlantic, April 29, 2025) (College graduates are marrying at high rates. Everyone else isn’t.)
- Finally, please consider having your law firm put out a statement affirming its commitment to the rule of law.
