585
Published in Family Law Quarterly, Volume 51, Number 4, Winter 2018. © 2018 American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof
may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
Review of the Year 2017 in Family Law:
Case Digests
I. Adoption................................................................................. 587
II. Agreements ............................................................................ 587
III. Alimony/Spousal Support ...................................................... 588
IV. Attorneys ................................................................................ 591
V. Child Custody and Visitation ................................................. 591
VI. Child in Need of Care ............................................................ 596
VII. Child Support ......................................................................... 600
VIII. Contempt ................................................................................ 602
IX. Dissolving the Marital Relationship ...................................... 602
X. Domestic Violence ................................................................. 603
XI. Equitable Distribution ............................................................ 604
XII. Estate Planning and Probate ................................................... 605
XIII. Evidence ................................................................................. 606
XIV. Guardians ............................................................................... 606
XV. Indian Child Welfare Act ....................................................... 607
XVI. Juvenile Justice ...................................................................... 608
XVII. Marital Property ..................................................................... 609
XVIII. Marriage ................................................................................. 612
586 Family Law Quarterly, Volume 51, Number 4, Winter 2018
Published in Family Law Quarterly, Volume 51, Number 4, Winter 2018. © 2018 American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof
may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
XIX. Modication ........................................................................... 612
XX. Name Changes ....................................................................... 612
XXI. Paternity ................................................................................. 612
XXII. Property Division ................................................................... 613
XXIII. Qualied Domestic Relations Orders .................................... 614
XXIV. Sanctions ................................................................................ 614
XXV. Taxation ..................................................................................615
XXVI. Termination of Parental Rights .............................................. 615
XXVII. Third-Party Visitation............................................................. 617
XXVIII. Torts ....................................................................................... 617
Case Digests 587
Published in Family Law Quarterly, Volume 51, Number 4, Winter 2018. © 2018 American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof
may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
I. Adoption
Idaho. Doe I (2017–13) v. Doe II, 402 P.3d 1089 (Idaho 2017). Grandmother’s
former girlfriend petitioned for co-adoption of two grandchildren and visitation
based on the parties’ original petition for co-adoption, which was denied. The
lower court granted grandmother’s motion to dismiss, and former girlfriend
appealed. The supreme court held that the original petition for co-adoption of the
grandchildren was insufcient to constitute written consent for the adoption, and
it did not constitute irrevocable consent to co-adopt with grandmother’s former
girlfriend.
Massachusetts. Adoption of Yadira, 68 N.E.3d 1175 (Mass. 2017). This case
involves four minor siblings who arrived in Massachusetts in 2010 from a
Nepalese refugee camp through the Federal Unaccompanied Refugee Minors
Program. The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) placed two
of the children in a foster home in Fitchburg and the other two in a foster home
in Ashby. In early 2013, the children’s mother and father entered the United
States and settled in North Dakota and Ohio, respectively. After coming to the
United States, both the mother and the father had very limited contact with the
children. In 2014, the DHHR petitioned the Probate and Family Court to free
the children for adoption by terminating parental rights. The mother moved to
deny the petition. The motion was denied and application for direct appellate
review was granted. The court held that federal regulation governing adoption
of unaccompanied minor refugees upon termination of parental rights authorized
the probate court to terminate parental rights, in accordance with state law, as a
prerequisite to adoption.
Oklahoma. In re Termination of Parental Rights of Schultz, 389 P.3d 322
(Okla. 2017). A father and adopted son jointly petitioned to set aside the adult
adoption that had been granted ten years earlier. The district court concluded
it lacked authority to set aside the adoption. The father and son appealed. The
supreme court held that the district court had the authority to consider and rule on
the father and adult adopted son’s joint petition to vacate the son’s adult adoption.
South Dakota. In re Adoption of J.Q.P., 903 N.W.2d 736 (S.D. 2017). Mother
and her husband led a petition for the husband to adopt child without the
biological father’s consent. The court concluded that unless the biological father
intentionally abandoned and relinquished parental obligations, he must give
consent to the adoption. Mother tried to argue that the biological father lived far
away, had not seen the child in years, and did not try to see the child. However, the
court found that the biological father tried to see the child but that the mother did
not allow him to do so, so he did not voluntarily abandon his child.
II. Agreements
Louisiana. Acurio v. Acurio, 224 So. 3d 935 (La. 2017), reh’g denied, 2017
La. LEXIS 1394 (June 29, 2017). After a divorce was led within the court,
