An In-Depth Look at Family Law Cases
Family law is based on several important legal tenets, some of which might be abstract for those not familiar with them. A lawyer representing a person or group in a family law dispute should have a deep understanding of these concepts, and be able to clearly communicate them to clients, judges and juries. While some of these ideas are easy to grasp, not all are. The most complicated family law cases are those that relate to a divorce and the allocation of child custody; here, the definitions are critical.
Substantial change in circumstances
The Courts want to ensure that, when they make determinations in family law cases, they do so based upon as much information as possible. Family law cases are not strictly doled out according to the black letter of the law; judges will often adjust their decisions about who gets what by considering the specific facts of individual cases. When doing this , they look very closely at how things have changed from the time of the original decision. In order to get a new judgment, you must first show that there has been a substantial change in circumstances.
Different areas of family law serve different niches of the family law function. For example, law relating to property is not going to apply in a case about parental rights, and vice-versa. While there are some clear ways in which one can tell which family law concept applies, most of the time, there is very little ability to cross over one area of case law into another where there is a very specific set of rules. Family law cases are about relationships – between parents, between parents and children, between couples and within the group as a whole.
Sample Cases for Divorce
As with any area of the law, the realm of divorce has its series of "big cases" that stood out for their public profile and/or the significance of the legal issues central to their resolution. As noted previously, some of those have to do with divorce itself, while others center on the post-divorce arrangements. Below are typical divorce cases, some of which you’ve probably heard about, while others will hopefully be new to you:
Philip Phillips’ divorce
Yes, that country music star. The future American Idol alum’s divorce was anything but typical. After PH6 and ex-wife Melissa Correa had two children, they began to look at options for PH6 to spend more time with them. The only problem was that the only way to relocate was to move to Nashville, which would mean relocating to a different state with different laws. As such, the couple filed a joint petition with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, seeking a ruling on the "parent over parent" standard the new state would use.
That standard essentially maintains that parents who share equal custody of their children retain the right to live where they choose, so long as the move does not have a negative impact on the children’s lives. The court ultimately ruled that Phillips could make the move.
Misty Jackson-Spencer’s divorce
Jackson-Spencer was a 23-year-old single mother of two when she met boyfriend Justin Spencer in 1999. The couple married two years later. While still married, Jackson-Spencer had a daughter, who is on the autism spectrum. She became pregnant again, but miscarried.
In 2005, Jackson-Spencer sought her divorce. It quickly became contentious, with Spencer ultimately being held in contempt of court for failure to pay child support. He was ultimately jailed for 13 days. A judge finally ended the divorce in July 2008, on the condition that Jackson-Spencer refrain from entering into a same-sex civil union for a period of one year and four days. The judge also told Jackson-Spencer to raise her children according to the Christian faith of her ex-husband.
The Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court overturned this decision in 2010. Ethics complaints against the original judge led to his resignation, after establishing that he failed to disclose loans from a local attorney during his campaign. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, ruling that the trial judge mishandled the case by allowing spousal support to be agreed upon during mediation.
Custody and Child Support Case Studies
Child custody and support cases can be particularly tough. So much is at stake: the safety of your child, the strength of your parenting plan, and financial obligations loom over the proceedings. For decades, family law courts have had to make hard decisions about what type of child support arrangement is best for the child, and what type of visitation rights each parent has.
There have been many high-profile family law proceedings that have royally mangled or elegantly clarified child custody and support issues. Here are a few that stand out, both for their emotional elements and their legal impact.
- Card v. Velazquez (2007). A New Jersey court awarded a father who was disabled and homeless full custody over his daughter. The mother had a history of abusing crack cocaine, agreeing to drug tests and missing multiple court-ordered meetings. The court dropped all evidence of the mother’s substance abuse history after her testing became positive, then found in favor of the father based on his testimony that he had spotted the mother with drugs near a neighbor’s house. The court also noted a positive home inspection done on the father’s apartment, and granted him custody.
- Kcemia v. Black (2010). A Pennsylvania court’s ruling led to the immediate arrest of the child’s father, at his request so that he could be jailed rather than visit his visiting program. His behavior was violent, the judge ruled, and made it impossible for her to grant him visitation rights with the child.
- In re Custody of S.P.C. (2004). A father was not allowed to see his son after the court was informed that he had molested his wife’s niece as a child. He had also showed "unhealthy behavior" toward his child, the Arizona court found. A year of treatment of the father had not changed his behavior.
- In re Marriage of Bradshaw (2002). A California appellate court ruled that a court had sufficiently detailed evidence to award joint custody over a juvenile with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The father had been awarded joint physical custody over the child but "primary residence," which automatically provided custody over the child unless otherwise court ordered. He relocated to a unit in Miami and wanted to have more time with his child. After the court learned that he was having trouble getting permission to take his son to the U.S., it decided in favor of the father’s request for permanent custody over the mother.
- Voit v. Voit (2006). This Colorado court case stemmed from a divorce procedure that took seven years and led to a handful of appeals. The Court of Appeals agreed with the widow’s assertion that the trial court miscalculated the assets of the husband. The hearing ended up not following the Colorado rules, including discovery, and the trial court had structured parenting and work schedules so that the mother could not obtain a full-time job. The trial court had vaunted its role in the divorce process, saying that the judges had learning about spousal hardships from the numerous procedures they had overseen before the Voit behemoth. But in the end the Colorado Supreme Court heard this loud argument and reduced both alimony payments and child support.
Illustrative Cases for Adoption and Guardianship
The landmark cases in adoption and guardianship disputes often function as critical references for future similar cases. Some illustrate the complex and unique nature of each case, while others can be used as tools to aid in the interpretation of unclear protocols and legislative loopholes.
Case: In re Adoption of Child
In the landmark case In re Adoption of Child—July v. Alabama Department of Human Resources—the Alabama Department of Human Resources’ (DHR) record-keeping methods were put to the test. The case involved an Alabama state’s decision to deny a biological mother the fundamental right to raise her daughter, so the mother appealed DHR’s failed attempted to complete the adoption on behalf of her child. According to the appellate court, the adoption request was denied by DHR because the birth mother had not received counseling prior to the adoption. However, the birth mother sought counseling on several occasions, and her therapist has stated that the birth mother understood the circumstances and was (and still is) fully aware of her child’s may-not-know-his-or-her-last-name status. And while the docket notes confirmed that an affidavit was filed that included a consent to adoption signed by the biological mother, DHR employee paperwork made no mention of said consent. Thus, the appellate court found DHR’s failure to file the proper paper with the surrogate parent’s consent (signed by the biological mother) constituted a "failure to follow mandatory procedure" and ruled in favor of the biological mother. This case was an important marker when it came to such situations where failed adoption attempts are due to negligence from the adoption agency . As a result, Alabama revised its policies to ensure that the right of appeal is now clearly protected in practice and not only in theory.
Case: In re Guardianship of N.W.W.
In the case of In re Guardianship of N.W.W., a guardianship dispute spread throughout the local media of Northern Alabama and drew opinions from all sides as child services, parent advocacy groups, lawyers, judges, and legislators weighed the family and best interests of over 60 children currently in the custody of the same foster parents (let alone their biological mother!). Through multiple court hearings, petitions, and public hearings, local reports suggested that the biological mother (and her partner), who had been estranged from their preterm birth son (who had been placed in the foster system), became aware of his whereabouts when he was under the care of the same foster parents that cared for over 60 other children. A leading child advocacy organization, Alabama Arise, held that the mother’s poverty constituted economic discrimination and that essential reunification programs offered by the state had failed her and her son (and the dozens of children living with the couple). On the other hand, some child welfare issues advocates claimed the group home under scrutiny were corrupt and may have even been running a "baby factory." However, the case was resolved, and upon the biological mother’s showing of income requirements necessary to support her child, the boy returned to her care. This case proved a landmark situation in determining the rights of incarcerated parents.
Noteworthy Cases for Domestic Violence
Domestic violence law battles are among the most tragic and difficult to sort out in a Family Court and certainly for those in the middle of problems. Many parties before a judge in divorce proceedings simply want to terminate the abuse so they can move on and separate. Domestic abuse often poses a physical threat to one party and a restraining order is necessary to protect a party from physical assault and even murder. Unfortunately, all domestic abuse is not physical, but there are other forms of domestic abuse that are recognized under the domestic violence statutes, such as sexual abuse, harassment and psychological or emotional abuse.
Real litigation has involved the granting of relief in cases of abuse, such as:
New Jersey provides for a plethora of protection to those in need of protection from abuse. The first step is to obtain a temporary restraining order, which is entered if the court finds that the victim has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic abuse did, in fact, take place by the defendant. Often, the victim of abuse is frightened by the actions of the abuser and the filing of the application for protection can be chilling to the abuser, because it can expose the abuser to other problems in addition to the domestic violence proceeding, such as criminal contempt and violations of restraining orders or even criminal prosecution. Effective August 5, 2016, if an incident of domestic violence occurs in a child care center, the center is required to report the incident to Child Protective Services. Children in a child care center are precious and vulnerable. Organizations handling young children are required to safeguard the children from physical harm, including domestic violence. This amendment to the statute requires child care centers to notify Child Protective Services of a domestic violence offense at the child care center. This would include an assault on an employee by a parent or other person related to a child in care, or a domestic violence offense between caregivers or between a caregiver and a visitor. Reforms in this area of domestic violence legislation have provided the New Jersey Administrative Office of Courts with the tools to raise public awareness of domestic abuse, including: -The Trained domestic violence advocate programs -The establishment of sensitive and trauma-informed center for survivors -The development of training for judicial personnel regarding domestic violence -The collection of data on domestic violence fatalities -Raising public awareness on domestic violence issues -The establishment of the Domestic Violence Working Group -Developing family court guidelines for victims of domestic violence The courts will continue to respond to the needs of litigants in family law cases so that everyone is treated fairly and equitably under the law. The laws will continue to evolve to address issues that come up as the result of cases brought before the court.
LGBT Marriage and Partnership Cases
In Simpson v. HEI Hospitality, LLC, et al., Ms. Simpson filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against her employer for terminating her for stating that she wished to add her same-sex spouse to the "spousal benefits plan." Upon removing the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and later to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upon dismissal by the trial judge, her employer argued that the Ninth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue on appeal because there was no way the employer could amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of "legislative historic intent" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) since it had already attested to the contrary in its answer. In other words, the employer claimed it made a judicial admission in its answer to which no amendments or clarifications were allowed.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the defendant’s assertions and held that same-sex couples are in fact protected by the ADA since sexual orientation is a "protected class." The Court noted that the lack of consistent terminology should not prevent same-sex couples from being part of and benefiting from American society since, "the time has come to embrace equality in marriage."
In Brenner v. American Honda Motor Co., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1175 [N.D. Cal. 2007] the California District Court held that an employer’s conduct toward Brenner, a same-sex employee who was living with her partner in a domestic partnership, violated the ADA’s prohibition on discrimination because of a partner’s disability .
Brenner was discriminated against at work for taking caregiver leave to help care for her partner. Her employer used Brenner’s absence as a pretext to terminate her and denied her workers’ compensation benefits following a car accident. Brenner claims the employer communicated its employees were given "family leave" for such leaves only when they were caring for "spouses" and "blood relatives."
The Court granted Brenner’s application to proceed as indigent, dismissed her complaint as frivolous, and entered a final judgment for the defendant employer. Thereafter, the Court vacated the judgment and allowed plaintiff Brenner to file an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, Brenner alleged four causes of action, including retaliation for exercising her rights, discrimination and harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), disability discrimination, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the ADA did not protect the plaintiff. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the ADA did not cover a same-sex couple residing in a domestic partnership who became disabled. Brenner’s case was reviewed on appeal and reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth District.