Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

After a hearing held on the second petition filed by the Department of Public Health and Human Services for termination of Mother’s parental rights, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her three children on the grounds that Mother had not successfully completed her treatment plan and the condition rendering her unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) despite delays in holding the show cause, adjudicatory, and dispositional hearings, Mother’s due process rights were not violated by the efforts of the Department and court to provide her with services, a treatment plan, and time to work toward reunification with her children; and (2) the district court did not err when it found that Mother failed to complete her treatment plan and the condition rendering her unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. View "In re A.H." on Justia Law

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services filed a petition for emergency protective services for seven-year-old H.T., alleging drug use by Mother and domestic violence between Mother and her boyfriend. The petition stated that H.T. “may be an Indian Child for the purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).” The district court granted the motion for emergency protective services. The district court subsequently held a hearing that adjudicated H.T. a youth in need of care. The Department then filed a petition for permanent legal custody and termination of parental rights. The district court held a termination hearing and adopted and approved the termination petition. Mother appealed, asserting that the district court failed to comply with state and federal statutory requirements for terminating parental rights to an Indian child. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) Mother received fundamentally fair procedures prior to the termination of her parental rights; but (2) because the district court applied the wrong statutory standards in its final order, its judgment is vacated. Remanded for entry of a new order on the issue of whether Mother’s parental rights should be terminated. View "In re H.T." on Justia Law

After Mother applied for child support enforcement services, the Family Support Division (FSD) issued an administrative child support order stating the proposed rights and obligations of Mother and Father. Mother disagreed with the calculation of Father’s monthly support obligation and filed a petition for judicial review of the FSD support order. Before Mother’s petition could be heard, Mother and Father settled on terms more favorable for Mother than the FSD order. The trial court entered judgment on the basis of the parties’ stipulation. The court then dismissed Mother’s petition for judicial review as moot. Thereafter, Mother filed an application to have FSD pay her attorney fees under Mo. Rev. Stat. 536.087. The trial court dismissed the application, concluding that Mother did not prevail on her petition for judicial review because it became moot when the trial court entered a superseding judgment. Mother appealed, arguing that even though her petition for judicial review was dismissed, she nevertheless prevailed against FSD because the dismissal resulted from a more favorable judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Mother obtained a favorable settlement from Father in this case, rather than FSD, the trial court correctly dismissed Mother’s attorney fee application under section 536.087. View "Garland v. Ruhl" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Department of Children's Services (DCS) filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his child. In 2013, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Father. The court of appeals reversed, holding that DCS was required to make reasonable efforts to assist Father, and reasonable efforts were not made. At issue was whether, in a petition to terminate the parental rights of a biological parent, the State is required to prove that it made reasonable efforts to reunify the parent with the child as a precondition to termination. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals in this case, holding that, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 36-1-113, the State need not prove that it made reasonable efforts as an essential component of its petition to terminate parental rights. In so holding, the Court overruled In re C.M.M. and its progeny to the extent the cases required the State to prove reasonable efforts as an essential component of the termination petition. View "In re Kaliyah S." on Justia Law

When Alexander was approximately twelve years old, he was placed in a program with Envisions of Norfolk, Inc. The juvenile court ordered that Alexander remain in the Envisions program until further order of the court. Less than two months later, Alexander was moved into a new foster home without further order of the court and without notice. The juvenile court found the Department of Health and Human Services and Nebraska Families Collaborative in contempt of court and ordered them to pay a fine of $5,000 or purge the contempt by complying with certain conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court (1) did not abuse its discretion in finding the Department to be in contempt of court; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction. View "In re Interest of Zachary D." on Justia Law

Bailey was convicted of federal prostitution charges in 2004. Minneapolis police officers took trial exhibits to a locked police storage facility, including $2,036 in cash, a wallet, and a cell phone. Years later Bailey moved for return of the property, but the government could not locate it. Bailey sought damages. The government agreed to pay Bailey $2,500 "by a check . . . made payable to Robert Bailey" to be mailed to the address of his lawyer. The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services notified Bailey that he owed past due support of $45,956.48 and announced the state's "intent to collect this amount through the federal administrative offset process and by withholding . . . [tax refunds] or other federal or state payment(s)." The notice cited 31 U.S.C. 3716, indicating that "certain federal payments which might otherwise be paid to you will be intercepted for payment of current and past due support." It advised Bailey of his rights, such as having the debt redetermined. Bailey unsuccessfully moved to vacate his settlement agreement. He was advised that the $2,500 had been administratively offset against his child support obligation. The Eighth Circuit affirmed; the government did not breach Bailey's settlement agreement View "United States v. Bailey" on Justia Law

At a routine doctor appointment for a hand injury, Y.N. ("Yvonne") learned that she was four months pregnant. During that four-month period, Yvonne had been taking Percocet for injuries caused in a car accident and became dependent on that medication. Hospital personnel advised her that she could not stop taking Percocet abruptly without endangering her pregnancy and recommended that she enter a methadone maintenance treatment program. Yvonne entered such a program four months later, a month before she gave birth. Her baby, P.A.C. ("Paul"), suffered methadone withdrawal symptoms at birth and remained hospitalized for about seven weeks. The Division of Youth and Family Services filed an abuse and neglect complaint against Yvonne based on her long-term drug use before and during her pregnancy, the harm caused to Paul from methadone withdrawal, and her failure to address acts of domestic violence committed against her. After a hearing, the family court entered a finding of abuse and neglect. The Appellate Division affirmed on the basis that Yvonne caused her child to suffer withdrawal symptoms from the methadone she took as part of a prescribed, bona fide medical treatment plan. The panel held her strictly liable for the harm suffered by Paul and gave no consideration to whether Yvonne acted unreasonably or failed to provide a minimum level of care for her newborn. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Division's reasoning and reversed: absent exceptional circumstances, a finding of abuse or neglect cannot be sustained based solely on a newborn's enduring methadone withdrawal following a mother's timely participation in a bona fide treatment program prescribed by a licensed healthcare professional to whom she has made full disclosure. The Appellate Division did not consider all of the requisite statutory elements in its analysis. The case was remanded for a determination of whether the finding of abuse or neglect could be sustained on any other ground articulated by the family court. View "New Jersey Div. of Child Protection & Perm. v. Y.N." on Justia Law

Mother and Father (“Parents”) were the parents of twin girls. Mother was a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation (“Tribe”), Father was not a member of any tribe, and the children were either members of, or eligible to be members of, the Tribe. The Dinwiddie Department of Social Services (DDSS) filed petitions to terminate Parents’ parental rights. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (“J&DR court”) denied the petitions. The DDSS appealed. The Tribe and Parents sought to transfer the case to tribal court. The trial court held that good cause existed not to transfer the proceeding to tribal court and denied the motion to transfer. The court then terminated Parents’ parental rights. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision on the motion to transfer, vacated the award terminating Parents' parental rights, and remanded. In so doing, the court rejected the traditional “best interests of the child” test in favor of a more limited test involving a substantial risk of harm to a child arising from the transfer to a tribal court. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded in light of the standards articulated by the court of appeals in Thompson v. Fairfax County Dep’t of Family Servs.View "Dinwiddie Dep’t of Social Servs. v. Nunnally" on Justia Law

M.U. is the mother of D.H., born in 1998, and J.A.H., born in 2001. On September 6, 2013, M.U. sought assistance from Burleigh County Social Services due to concerns she was being stalked. Later the same day, a juvenile court officer issued a temporary custody order granting Morton County Social Services temporary custody of the children. At a shelter care hearing, a judicial referee found continued shelter care was necessary, as there was probable cause for deprivation. The State petitioned to obtain custody of the children, alleging the children were deprived. M.U., the mother, appealed the juvenile court order removing her children and placing them in the custody of Morton County Social Services. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court remanded this case with instructions that, within sixty days from the filing of this opinion, the juvenile court make expedited findings of fact to determine whether D.H. and J.A.H. were deprived.View "Interest of J.A.H." on Justia Law

John Doe was the biological father of T.C. Doe was a juvenile when T.C. was born. Doe paid Mother a total of $52.00 in child support, despite a court order requiring him to pay Mother child support of $253.00 per month. Doe owed approximately eight thousand dollars in unpaid child support. Doe never provided T.C. or Mother with any alternate form of support such as clothing, diapers, or food. During T.C.’s life, Doe was regularly incarcerated and had no contact with T.C. for months at a time; including a substantial period of time that the child protection proceedings were ongoing. Doe has been unable to maintain employment or a home and typically resides in the homes of various girlfriends. Doe was addicted to methamphetamine and, when not in custody, he used methamphetamine. Doe had an extensive criminal record and has been a defendant in more than forty criminal matters. A petition was filed under the Child Protective Act (CPA) asking a magistrate court to place T.C under the supervision of the Department. The same day, the magistrate court ordered the removal of T.C. on the basis that continuation in the home would be contrary to T.C.’s welfare. The magistrate court placed T.C. in the care of the Department of Child Services. Doe learned of the Department’s petition when his aunt informed him of the proceedings. His parental rights to T.C. were ultimately terminated on grounds that the trial court found Doe neglected T.C., and that it was in the child's best interests to have Doe's parental rights terminated. Doe appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order.View "Health & Welfare v. John Doe (13-29)" on Justia Law