Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 2011, when the minor "T.M." was seven years old, his mother died and he began living with father. In 2015, an unknown reporter told social services the minor was afraid of his father, who had been punching him. The minor reported to the social worker father had been punching him “for the last five years,” including “whoopings” when the minor got into trouble and “for no reason.” The minor was aware father hits his stepmother. Father was convicted of a 2012 misdemeanor domestic violence incident against stepmother. He failed to complete the batterer’s treatment program that was part of his sentence. T.M. was ultimately placed with an uncle, and indicated he did not want to return home. At a contested jurisdiction hearing, father testified the minor was lying about being afraid or having been beaten. Apparently referencing father’s disruptive behavior during the hearing, the court noted he was unable “to control himself in any setting, let alone should the child be subject to his behaviors.” The court set review hearing dates and reiterated therapeutic visitation and conjoint counseling could begin after both father and the minor had an opportunity for individual counseling. Father appealed the juvenile court's order denying him visitation with T.M., arguing the trial court applied the wrong standard in finding that visits would be detrimental to T.M. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "In re T.M." on Justia Law

John Doe and Mother were the natural parents of J.M, an eight-year-old boy. John Doe and Mother had what was described as a sporadic and volatile relationship for approximately ten years. During that time, both Doe and Mother used methamphetamine and other controlled substances and committed acts of domestic violence upon each other. Mother had three children; however, this appeal dealt only with the termination of Doe’s parental rights to J.M. Doe was J.M.'s biological son. Doe appealed the magistrate court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to J.M. The magistrate court determined that it was in J.M.’s best interests to terminate Doe’s parental rights under Idaho Code sections 16-2005(1)(b) and (d) because there was clear and convincing evidence that Doe had neglected J.M pursuant to Idaho Code section 16-2002(3)(b), and/or Doe would be unable to discharge his parental responsibilities for a prolonged indeterminate period of time, which would be injurious to J.M’s health, morals, or well-being. After review of the record, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the decision to terminate parental rights and affirmed. View "Re: Termination of Parental Rights (father)" on Justia Law

A mother and her eight children were routinely severely abused by the father of the younger children while living in another state. The mother fled to Alaska with four of her daughters in 2013. After the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) obtained temporary custody of the children, the mother resisted OCS’s efforts to reunify the family and refused to participate in supervised visits with her daughters. She left Alaska in October 2014, maintaining only sporadic contact with her daughters, and she had not returned. The superior court terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights with respect to two of the younger daughters, finding that: the children were in need of aid due to abandonment and other statutory factors; that the parents had not remedied the conduct that made the children in need of aid; that OCS had made reasonable efforts toward reunification; and that termination was in the daughters’ best interests. The mother appealed the termination of her parental rights but did not appeal the superior court’s finding that her children were initially in need of aid. Finding that the superior court's judgment was amply supported by the record, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed. View "Joy B. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Soc. Svcs." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the biological parents of D.M. D.M. was removed from Mother and Father and placed in the custody of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (the DHHR). After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court entered a final order finding D.M. to be an abused and neglected child and terminating the parental rights of both Mother and Father. The court denied Mother’s and Father’s motions for a post-adjudicatory improvement period and ordered that custody of D.M. will remain with the DHHR. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in determining that D.M. was an abused and neglected child and that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse could be substantially corrected in the near future; and (2) properly determined that neither Mother nor Father established a likelihood of full participation in a post-adjudicatory improvement period. View "In re D.M." on Justia Law

Jane Doe (“Mother”) appealed a magistrate court’s judgment terminating her parental rights as to her children, D.M., A.M., J.S., A.L., and R.L. She argued that the State failed to produce clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that she could parent her children. Specifically, Mother argued that: (1) the last eight months of her participation in the case plan contravene a finding of neglect; and (2) the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“IDHW”) failed to help reunify the family. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "H&W v. Jane Doe (2016-11)" on Justia Law

Jane Doe I (Mother) and John Doe I (Father) each appealed the magistrate court’s judgment terminating their parental rights as to their two minor children, L.W. and J.W. Mother argued the magistrate court erred in several respects, including that it wrongfully terminated her parental rights because the State’s petition for termination was not filed in accordance with Idaho law and because the children had not been in Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) custody for a mandatory period of fifteen months before the petition was filed. Mother also argued that the magistrate erred in finding that the children were neglected; that it was in the Mother’s best interests to have her parental rights terminated; and that Mother was unable to discharge her parental responsibilities. Father incorporated Mother’s arguments on appeal into his own appeal, and added that the court erred in determining that Father was unable to discharge his parental responsibilities. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe / John Doe" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's consideration centered on the circumstances a child support order could compel an obligor parent whose income was below the self-support reserve to make monthly payments toward outstanding arrearages on a child support surcharge. Father appealed pro se a family court order affirming a magistrate’s decision to deny his motion to modify a child support order that related solely to outstanding arrearages owed for surcharges. He argued that because his limited income from social security disability benefits was below the self-support reserve, he should not have been ordered to make $50 monthly payments toward outstanding surcharges. The magistrate considered the possibility of reducing or eliminating father’s monthly payment obligation, as opposed to discharging the underlying judgment. The magistrate noted that father’s living circumstances had changed on account of a recent divorce and that his income had fallen. However, the magistrate found that his modest monthly income was still sufficient to meet his modest expenses and allow him to continue paying $50 per month toward his surcharge arrearages. In addition, the magistrate found that father’s consistent payment of the $50 per month over the course of years supported the finding that he was, in fact, able to afford the payment. For these reasons, the magistrate declined to reduce father’s monthly surcharge arrearage payment. The statute relating to computation of a parent’s support obligation provided that if a noncustodial parent’s available income is less than the self-support reserve, the court shall use its discretion in determining support and shall require payment of a nominal support amount. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The magistrate made no findings that mother had shown good cause why the payment of arrears should be ordered notwithstanding father’s monthly income below the self-support reserve. Nor did the magistrate make any findings from which we might infer a determination of good cause, such as a finding that, notwithstanding his low monthly income, father has access to significant assets, or a finding that for some other reason this case was extraordinary. View "Leitgeb v. Leitgeb" on Justia Law

In late August 2015, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a dependency petition regarding minor, who was about one month shy of his third birthday. While at the emergency room for a cut on his finger, child was observed to have red sores and pustules around his genitals and buttocks. Also, mother reported that she had not taken minor for any well checks since he was one month old, and that minor had not received any vaccinations. The petition alleged that mother had unresolved anger management issues. In 2013 mother was convicted for domestic violence arising from an incident in which she had struck her ex-husband in the head five times and struck his vehicle repeatedly with a metal stick. The petition also alleged that mother had an unresolved substance abuse problem; a history of methamphetamine use. She reportedly had last used methamphetamine approximately two weeks prior to the incident in which minor cut his finger. Mother’s probation officer reported that mother was not enrolled in a drug treatment program, had multiple positive drug tests, and was not attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Being sent to jail marked a significant turning point for mother. The child was placed with his maternal aunt and uncle. The aunt and uncle indicated a desire to adopt minor if reunification with mother were to fail. Mother contested the recommendation, and an evidentiary hearing was held. Ultimately, the court sided with SSA, terminated reunification services, and set a hearing. The court described mother’s progress while out of custody as “minimal” and “hollow.” The court described mother’s visitation as “strikingly sporadic.” The court noted, however, that while in custody, “mother has taken advantage of every service . . . available to her, and that certainly is to be commended.” The court also “emphathize[d] with mother for a variety of reasons, her youth, the loss that she has suffered in her life.” Nonetheless, the court felt “constrained by an evaluation of the . . . statutory and case law . . . .” Mother’s petition for writ of mandate arose from the trial court’s order terminating reunification services and the “.26 hearing.” After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court’s finding regarding mother’s actions towards reunification was not supported by substantial evidence. As such, the Court issued the requested writ of mandate. View "J.F. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 2006, John Doe (“Father”) and Mother were the parents of three minor daughters who were approximately 5, 6, and 7 years of age. A federal grand jury in Idaho issued an indictment charging Father with hiring someone from out of state to kill Mother. The indictment alleged that Father had agreed to pay that person $10,000. A jury found Father guilty, and the federal court sentenced him to 120 months in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons and three years of supervision following his release from prison. The federal court also sentenced him to a fine of $17,500. Following Father’s arrest and incarceration, Mother had sole custody of their three minor daughters. By 2013, the girls were 12, 13 and 14. Mother was having psychological issues and tried to take her own life; the eldest daughter also had attempted suicide. The State intervened and filed for protection under the Child Protective Act. The Department of Health and Welfare recommended the girls remain in shelter care due to an unstable home environment; Father wanted the girls placed with his adult son in Arizona. Ultimately, termination of Father's parental rights was recommended and granted. Father appealed, arguing the evidence of abandonment and neglect was insufficient to support termination of parental rights. Finding no reversible error in this respect, the Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights. View "Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare v. John Doe (2016-09)" on Justia Law

J.W. was adjudged child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) because his mother would not adequately protect J.W. from father if the child was returned to mother’s care. Mother did not appeal this adjudication, rather father appealed, arguing that the court “usurped the executive role of investigation and prosecution” by taking judicial notice of his criminal record and filings related to a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order that mother obtained against him. He argued that the court’s findings did not support its conclusion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re J.W." on Justia Law