Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A natural mother filed a petition to set aside the adoption of her child, D.A.P., more than five years after the final adoption decree. She claimed that the adoption was based on fraudulent misrepresentations that it would be an "open" adoption, allowing her continued contact with the child. The adoption was finalized on July 6, 2017, and the mother alleged that she was misled into believing she would maintain contact with her child post-adoption.The Neshoba County Chancery Court denied the mother's request for access to adoption records in 2021, citing the statute of limitations and lack of good cause. In 2022, the mother filed a petition to set aside the adoption decree, claiming fraud, coercion, and misrepresentation. The court dismissed her petition, noting that the mother had not appealed the original adoption judgment and that setting aside the adoption would prejudice the adoptive parents and the child. The court found no evidence of fraud upon the court, as the adoption petition clearly stated the termination of the mother's parental rights.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court's decision. The court held that the mother's petition was untimely, as it was filed more than six months after the adoption decree, which is the statutory limit for challenging an adoption in Mississippi. The court also found no fraud upon the court, as there was no sworn testimony or filing indicating an open adoption. The court emphasized the importance of finality in adoption proceedings to ensure stability and security for the child. View "In the Matter of the Adoption of D.A.S." on Justia Law

Mark Rath and Heather Zins share a child, A.J.O., born in 2004. Zins was awarded primary residential responsibility, and Rath was ordered to pay child support. A.J.O. turned 18 in November 2022, ending Rath's ongoing support obligation, but he had accrued arrears. Rath was served with an order to show cause for civil contempt due to non-payment. After an evidentiary hearing, a judicial referee found Rath in contempt and ordered him to make monthly payments towards his arrears, with a suspended 20-day jail sentence contingent on a future hearing.Rath sought review by the District Court of Burleigh County, which adopted the judicial referee's findings. Rath appealed, arguing violations of his right to counsel, errors in child support calculations, and that the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act limits the State's ability to collect more than fifty percent of his income. He also claimed the defense of laches and third-party standing should prevent enforcement of his obligations.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case under a clearly erroneous standard. The court held that Rath's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because the contempt hearing did not result in immediate incarceration, and procedural safeguards were followed. The court also found that Rath's child support obligation continued despite temporary custody by the division of juvenile services and that the doctrine of laches does not apply to child support arrearages. Additionally, the court ruled that the State and Zins have standing to collect arrears even after the child reached the age of majority, and the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act does not limit the State's collection efforts in this context. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Burleigh County Social Service Board v. Rath" on Justia Law

Devon Arseneau and her ex-husband were involved in a child custody dispute in the St. Louis County Circuit Court. The court appointed Elaine Pudlowski and Brian Dunlop as guardians ad litem to represent the child's best interests and James Reid to conduct psychological evaluations. Following their testimonies, the court awarded sole legal custody to Arseneau’s ex-husband and joint physical custody to both parents. Arseneau subsequently filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pudlowski, Dunlop, and Reid, alleging that their actions during the custody proceedings violated her constitutional rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed Arseneau’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity and had not acted under color of state law. The district court did not address the defendants' arguments regarding Younger abstention or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court determined that Younger abstention did not apply because there were no ongoing state proceedings. It also bypassed the Rooker-Feldman issue, finding that the merits of the case warranted dismissal. The court held that the defendants, as guardians ad litem and a court-appointed psychologist, were entitled to absolute immunity for actions within the scope of their judicial duties, even if those actions were alleged to be wrongful or illegal. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of Arseneau’s § 1983 claims. View "Arseneau v. Pudlowski" on Justia Law

Two children, E.G. and J.J., through their guardian ad litem, John D. Elliott, filed a lawsuit against the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) and others, alleging that the children were sexually molested by P.M., the adopted son of Annie Montgomery, while in Montgomery's foster care. The plaintiffs claimed that DSS and Montgomery were negligent in placing and accepting the children into the foster home, knowing or having reason to know of P.M.'s history of sexually abusive behavior. They sought discovery of DSS's adoption files to support their claims.The circuit court issued a protective order for certain DSS foster care files but did not rule on the adoption files. The plaintiffs then filed a motion in family court to unseal the adoption files, which was denied. The family court ruled that the plaintiffs had no legal interest in the records and had not shown good cause under section 63-9-780(C) of the South Carolina Code. The court of appeals affirmed this decision.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the confidentiality provision in section 63-9-780(C) does not insulate DSS adoption files from civil discovery if they meet the criteria under the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The court determined that if the files are discoverable under Rule 26(b), then good cause exists for their inspection. The court reversed the court of appeals' decision, emphasizing that protective orders can be used to maintain confidentiality while allowing necessary discovery. View "E.G. v. SCDSS" on Justia Law

David Efron and Madeleine Candelario were involved in a divorce proceeding in Puerto Rico, during which Efron was ordered to pay Candelario $50,000 per month. After the divorce was finalized, Candelario began a relationship with Judge Cordero, and Efron alleges that Candelario, her attorney, and Judges Cordero and Aponte conspired to reinstate the payments through a corrupt scheme. Efron claims this resulted in Candelario receiving approximately $7 million. Efron filed a federal lawsuit against Candelario and her attorney, asserting claims for deprivation of procedural due process, conspiracy to deny civil rights, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Efron’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court found that Efron’s claims were inextricably intertwined with the Puerto Rico court’s judgment and that granting relief would effectively nullify that judgment. The district court also rejected Efron’s argument that his claims fell under a fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Efron’s claims because they essentially sought to challenge the state court’s judgment. The court concluded that Efron’s claims for damages were not independent of the state court’s decision but were directly related to it, as they required the federal court to review and reject the state court’s judgment. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Efron v. Candelario" on Justia Law

The case involves Michelle Gilbank, who lost custody of her daughter, T.E.H., in state court proceedings in Wisconsin. Gilbank alleged that various officials involved in those proceedings violated her federal constitutional rights. The events began when Gilbank, who had a history of drug use, moved into her ex-partner Ian Hoyle's apartment. Following an anonymous tip, police and social workers investigated and found evidence of Gilbank's drug use. On August 21, 2018, Gilbank was arrested for drug possession, and her daughter was temporarily placed with Hoyle. Subsequent state court hearings resulted in the continued placement of T.E.H. with Hoyle until Gilbank regained custody in March 2020.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that some of Gilbank’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. The court also ruled that the remaining claims failed on the merits, including claims of unreasonable search, denial of due process, and unlawful eviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case en banc. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred claims based on injuries caused by state court judgments. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the merits for claims not barred by Rooker-Feldman, including those related to the urinalysis, interrogation without an attorney, and the removal of T.E.H. The court found that Gilbank had consented to the urinalysis, that her Fifth Amendment rights were not violated as her statements were not used in a criminal proceeding, and that there was no seizure of T.E.H. by government actors. The court also rejected the existence of a "fraud exception" to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. View "Gilbank v. Wood County Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Dylan H. initiated a legal proceeding to establish paternity of a minor child, P.C., against Brooke C., the child's natural mother. Brooke's partner, Brandon B., intervened, claiming paternity based on a notarized acknowledgment he had signed. Dylan then filed a third-party complaint to disestablish Brandon's paternity, alleging fraud and material mistake of fact. The district court for Nemaha County bifurcated the issues and held an evidentiary hearing on the disestablishment claim. The court found fraud and material mistake of fact, disestablishing Brandon's paternity, and later denied a motion for a new trial.The district court's decision to disestablish Brandon's paternity was appealed by Brooke and Brandon. They also appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial. However, the district court had not resolved all claims in the case, including Dylan's action to establish paternity, custody, and support. The Nebraska Court of Appeals had previously dismissed an appeal related to genetic testing, determining it was not filed within the required timeframe and did not affect a substantial right.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and determined that the orders appealed from did not resolve all claims and involved multiple parties, thus implicating Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1). This statute requires certification for an order to be appealable when it adjudicates fewer than all claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all parties. The district court had not provided such certification. Consequently, the Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the requirements for a final, appealable order under § 25-1315(1) were not met. View "Dylan H. v. Brooke" on Justia Law

In 2018, a juvenile court removed seven children from their biological parents' custody due to abuse and neglect. The children were returned in early 2019 but removed again a few months later after continued issues. The five oldest children were eventually placed with their grandparents in New Mexico, while the two youngest, Alice and Liam, were placed with a foster family in Utah. In October 2020, the juvenile court held a termination trial to determine the best permanent placement for Alice and Liam. The court decided it was in their best interest to terminate the biological parents' rights and allow the foster family to adopt them.The biological parents appealed the decision. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the termination order, concluding that the juvenile court's decision was against the clear weight of the evidence. The appellate court also held that termination must be "materially better" than any other option. Because it reversed on the merits, the court of appeals did not address other issues raised by the parents, such as ineffective counsel.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and found several errors in the court of appeals' reasoning. First, it rejected the "materially better" standard, stating that the correct standard is whether termination is "strictly necessary" to promote the child's best interest. Second, the court of appeals exceeded its scope by reweighing evidence and considering evidence outside the record. Third, the court of appeals erred in concluding that the juvenile court's decision was against the clear weight of the evidence. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case for consideration of the remaining issues in the biological parents' initial appeal. View "In re A.H." on Justia Law

Harrison Sanders and Trinity Turner, divorced parents of two children, were involved in a legal dispute over compliance with a Family Court Order of Protection From Abuse (PFA Order) against Turner. The PFA Order required Turner to undergo evaluations by a certified treatment program and obtain a psychological evaluation. Turner failed to comply, leading to a contempt finding and a daily fine of $200 until compliance.The Family Court Commissioner found Turner in contempt twice. The first contempt order imposed a daily fine for noncompliance, and the second contempt order calculated the total fine at $51,200 for continued noncompliance. Initially, the Commissioner directed that the fine be paid to Sanders. Turner sought review by a Family Court Judge, who upheld the contempt finding and fine amount but ruled that the fine should be paid to the court, not Sanders. Sanders filed a motion for reargument, which the court denied, maintaining that the fine was to be paid to the court as it was intended to coerce compliance with the court's order.The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decision. The court held that coercive contempt fines, unless compensatory in nature, should be paid to the court. The court reasoned that it is the court's authority being vindicated through such fines, not the rights of a private litigant. The court also addressed procedural arguments, concluding that the Family Court Judge had the authority to review and modify the Commissioner’s orders and that Sanders suffered no prejudice from the court’s decision to consider the payment recipient issue. The Supreme Court denied Sanders' request for attorneys' fees, affirming the Family Court's judgment. View "Sanders v. Turner" on Justia Law

Keith and Latasha Warner were married in 2018 and have one child. In May 2022, Keith filed for divorce and requested primary residential responsibility. The parties initially agreed to an interim order granting equal residential responsibility. After mediation in August 2022, a summary agreement was prepared but not signed by either party. Keith served multiple documents to Latasha at an incorrect address, causing her to miss a scheduling conference and not receive a notice of trial. Despite this, the court mailed a scheduling order to her correct address, setting a trial date for June 5, 2023.At trial, Latasha requested a continuance to retain counsel, which the court denied. The court awarded primary residential responsibility to Keith. Latasha did not appeal the judgment but later moved for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60, arguing that Keith's misrepresentation about the mediation agreement prevented her from fairly preparing her case. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied her motion.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s denial of Latasha’s motion for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion. The court found that the mediation agreement was not binding as it was not signed or approved by the court. The court also found that Keith’s counsel’s statement during trial was inaccurate but did not prevent Latasha from fairly preparing her case. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Latasha’s motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) and affirmed the decision. View "Warner v. Warner" on Justia Law