Child Custody – Joint Legal Custody - Adequate Parenting Time
Cardona v. Padilla, 30 Conn. App. 534 (Connecticut Appellate Court, Feb. 3, 2025): Mother filed custody application against father, who lived in Florida, requesting sole legal and primary physical custody of child and child support, and father filed cross complaint seeking sole legal and physical custody of the child, and an application for emergency ex parte order of custody. After father's application for emergency custody was denied, the trial court awarded the parties joint legal custody of child, awarded father primary physical custody of child, and ordered visitation for mother with child. Mother appealed. Held: Trial court's visitation order, with significant gaps in time in which mother was permitted to see child, did not comply with statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56) requiring order to provide for active and consistent involvement of both parents, and thus order was an abuse of discretion, although mother lived in Connecticut and father lived in Florida; order provided mother with in‑person visitation 12 days over a nine‑month school year, trial court made no findings that limiting mother's visitation was in child's best interests, concern about child going back and forth between Connecticut and Florida was not a basis to refuse mother's request for visitation in Florida, parties' communication challenges existed regardless of visitation schedule, and order provided no birthday visitation and only one holiday.
Child Custody - Passport – Flight Risk
Schaible v. Schaible, No. CA2024‑06‑049, 2025-Ohio-320 (Ohio Court of Appeals, Twelfth District, Clermont County, Feb. 3, 2025):
Ex‑wife, who was subject to a shared parenting plan of son following divorce from ex‑husband, filed a motion to stay passport issuance for son and a request for an emergency order staying the issuance of said passport, out of concern that ex‑husband would remove son from court's jurisdiction and country. Stay denied and wife appealed. Wife argued that the domestic relations court was required to consider the factors enumerated in the pretrial release statute in determining whether ex‑husband posed a risk of fleeing the country with his and ex‑wife's son. Held: No, that’s silly. In fact, that’s so silly, it’s a frivolous appeal and we’re awarding attorney’s fees.
Child Custody - UCCJEA - Due Process
Justice v. Guerrero‑Justice, No. 3D24‑1248 (Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, Feb. 5, 2025):
Wife brought divorce action in Tennessee, stating that child lived with her, and husband brought divorce action in Florida, stating that child lived with him. Wife moved to dismiss the Florida action, and husband moved to dismiss the Tennessee action. After Tennessee court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss and found that Tennessee was the child's home state, the Florida court dismissed the Florida case. Husband appealed. Held: Husband's due process rights were violated when trial court failed to comply with its obligations under provision of Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act (UCCJEA) governing communication between courts. After Tennessee court issued order denying husband's motion to dismiss wife's Tennessee divorce action and found that Tennessee was the child's home state, Florida court dismissed husband's Florida divorce action without providing the parties the opportunity to participate, and under UCCJEA, Florida court had duty to allow the parties to participate in the communications with a court of another state.
Child Support – Income – Tribal Payments
Pateras v. Armenta, 2d Civ. No. B336065 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Feb. 27, 2025):
Payments that father received from Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indian tribe's general welfare program did not fall within need‑based statutory exclusion from income and thus could be considered in child support calculation. The payments were not tied a public assistance program for which eligibility was based on poverty line standards, and it could be reasonably inferred that eligibility for tribe's general welfare program was based on being a descendant of the tribe, not on any showing of financial need, since father earned in excess of $100,000 in annual salary and received $5,000 a month in payments from tribe's general welfare program.
Child Support - Income - Deviation – Medical Expenses - Proof
Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone, No. 20240143, 2025 ND 40 (North Dakota Supreme Court, Feb. 13, 2025):
Evidence, m’boy, evidence. District court could consider irrevocable trust income reported on father's personal tax returns when calculating his gross income for child support purposes, despite his assertion he lacked access to, and did not receive income from, the trusts, where father did not present any documents of the irrevocable trusts to the court or provide the court with evidence of his income, and thus the court only had before it the financial statements provided by mother and the tax returns for father listing the irrevocable trusts. Second, the trial court’s findings were insufficient to support upward deviation of $1500 per month from child support guidelines based on child's increased needs due to her health conditions and developmental delays. The court made no findings as to child's future medical needs and related costs, which father contended would be reduced or eliminated since child had been properly diagnosed and was on medication, court made no findings about additional educational costs due to child's needs, court noted mother's claim that “such expenses result in a $2,000 per month cost to her” and did not explain how that resulted in $1,500 upward departure, and court did not explain how, in light of judgment ordering father to provide medical insurance for child and pay uncovered medical costs, child's conditions would result in costs to mother as the primary parent.
(Ed. Note: As to the trust income, see also Chapman v. Chapman, No. S‑18761 (Alaska Supreme Court, Feb. 14, 2025, holding that trial court permissibly treated trust created by ex‑husband, of which ex‑husband was the primary beneficiary, as an underperforming asset in determining whether income should be imputed to ex‑husband when calculating ex‑husband's support obligation, where, by creating trust, ex‑husband arranged to remove significant funds from his income and then chose not to take distributions of that income from the trust.)
Child Support - Mexican Order - Personal Jurisdiction
Matter of Penichet, No. 2023‑0678, 2025 N.H. 8 (New Hampshire Supreme Court, Feb. 7, 2025):
A case for you, Heather. Mother filed a request to register and enforce a temporary child support order from Mexico. The trial court granted father's motion to deny registration of order, denied mother's request to reopen record, and denied mother's motion to reconsider. Mother appealed. Held: Affirmed. Father did not “purposefully avail” himself of laws and protection of Mexico and, thus, did not have sufficient minimum contacts for Mexico court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over him that would comport with due process, even though father had entered into stipulation giving mother sole legal and physical custody of child and right to relocate to Mexico. Further, father had not traveled to Mexico since traveling there for child's baptism, he did not own property or do business in Mexico, and lack of child support agreement did not make it foreseeable that he would be required to defend action in Mexico, as he had been paying support for years. (Kulko, anyone?)
Intimate Partner Violence - Gaslighting
In re Marriage of Shia, No. B331531 (California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Division One, January 27, 2025) (unpublished):
No domestic violence restraining order based on gaslighting. “Lily argues gaslighting can constitute abuse because it causes her to question her own mental well‑being and sanity. Lily does not dispute the family law court’s conclusion that the gaslighting allegations predated February 19, 2016 and could not be relitigated. Assuming arguendo Lily’s gaslighting allegations concern Gunther’s more recently denying his purported steroid‑induced rages and Lily’s contributions to his career success, we decline to hold that ex‑spouses’ denials of each other’s accusations, without more, constitute psychological abuse meriting a restraining order.”
Parentage - Proof - Brazilian Birth Certificate
Lyra v. King, No. 369216 (Michigan Court of Appeals, Feb. 19, 2025):
Mother presented no proof to support assertion that putative father's paternity was established under Brazilian law, and thus trial court erred by determining that he had duty to pay child support under Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) based solely on ipse dixit of birth certificate naming him as father without allowing him to challenge parentage, despite mother's argument that putative father had agreed in court that parentage was determined under Brazilian law. The putative father had consistently sought to establish child's parentage and disputed whether paternity was established, he did not concede that issue was determined under Brazilian law, and trial court relied upon mother's bald assertion that birth certificate was determination of parentage under Brazilian law, though she provided no support for her claim.
PARENTAGE - STANDING - IN LOCO PARENTIS
A.C. v. E.K., No. 717 MDA 2024, 2025 PA Super 31 (Pennsylvania Superior Court, Feb. 12, 2025):
Mother filed a complaint against her former boyfriend, seeking shared legal custody and primary physical custody of their child, and former boyfriend filed an answer and counterclaim to mother's custody complaint, seeking shared legal and physical custody of mother's biological child who was conceived via in vitro fertilization using sperm donor. Held: A third party lacks standing to seek custody as against biological parent, except when such a party stands in loco parentis, that is, where he or she has assumed obligations incident to the parental relationship. Here, former boyfriend was not in loco parentis to child. Mother did not hold boyfriend out as child's father, boyfriend never assumed the obligations incident to a parental relationship or discharged parental duties with respect to raising child, and boyfriend only occasionally bought groceries for mother and child, never made regular payments toward mortgage on mother's house, and only did some small acts of household maintenance while he was living with mother.
Parental Rights - Name
Foote v. Ludlow School Committee,128 F.4th 336 (United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Feb. 18, 2025):
Parents filed § 1983 action alleging that school committee's protocol requiring its staff to use student's requested name and gender pronouns within school without notifying parents of those requests unless student consented violated their fundamental parental rights protected by Due Process Clause. Held: Don’t you have anything better to do? The protocol did not violate parents' substantive due process right to direct medical treatment for their child; Due Process Clause did not give parents right to veto curriculum and administrative decisions by teachers and school staff pursuant to protocol; protocol did not violate parents' substantive due process right to direct their child's upbringing; and protocol was rationally related to school's interest in cultivating safe, inclusive, and educationally conducive environment for students.
Procedure - Discovery - Sanction
Soldo‑Allesio v. Ferguson, No. 87657‑COA, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Nevada Court of Appeals, Feb. 13, 2025):
District court improperly excluded all of unwed mother's trial exhibits as discovery sanction, for her alleged failure to timely disclose them in child custody action, without first evaluating whether that sanction was appropriate and justified. The court failed to consider if there was a good cause exception for mother's delay in disclosing her trial exhibits, if she would experience undue hardship if the exhibits were excluded, if exclusion was an appropriate sanction, or if an alternative penalty was available to compensate father for the delay in producing trial exhibits.
Property Division - Net Award
Fitzgerald v. O’Brien, No. 24A‑DN‑200 (Indiana Court of Appeals, Feb. 13, 2025):
Wife filed petition for dissolution of marriage with husband, who had purchased their residence prior to the marriage. The trial court awarded husband and wife the assets and debts in their names, found the net marital estate value to be $33,858.00, and required husband to pay an equalization payment of $42,234.00 to wife for her share of the equity in the marital residence. Husband appealed. Held: the trial court abused its discretion in division of marital estate by making net award to wife exceed the net value of the marital estate. Well, d’uh.
Property Division - Retirement Account – Divestment of Beneficial Interest
Mowen v. Kelly, 2025 IL App (4th) 240906 (Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, Feb. 10, 2025):
Judgment of dissolution, which tracked marital settlement agreement that awarded each party any pension or retirement account in their name, did not divest former wife of her expectancy interest in husband's retirement account. An ownership interest in retirement account was different from an expectancy or beneficial interest in the account, judgment of dissolution did specifically waive wife's expectancy or beneficial interest in the retirement account, and husband had the ability to change the beneficiary designations on the account but failed to do so.
News Items of Interest
Isabel Fattal, The Art of Splitting Up (The Atlantic, February 22, 2025)
Trump Signs Executive Order to Expand Access to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
For commentary on the Executive Order:
Andrea Gonzales-Ramirez, Trump’s IVF Executive Order is a Glorified Press Release (New York Magazine, Feb. 20, 2025)
Ellen Trachman, Conceiving Next Steps for the IVF Protection Executive Order (Above the Law, Feb. 19, 2025)
