IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO JM, Wis: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2014

Student name: Ashley Welke Link for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10786677660891157270&q=Wisconsin+child+visitation+case&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50&as_ylo=2014 Title: IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO JM, Wis: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2014 After a hearing disputing termination of Shannon’s parental rights to her two children (A.M. and T.M.), Portage County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) appeals orders of the circuit court setting aside jury verdicts on this case. In January of 2014, the Department asked for petitions that would involuntarily end Shannon’s parental rights to her children, A.M. and T.M. These petitions contained three grounds, child abandonment, child in protection and services (CHIPS), and continuing denial of periods of physical placement or visitation. The Circuit Court dismissed the third ground, containing denial of periods of physical placement or visitation, because Shannon was already denied physical placement and visitation in September of 2012. However, the September court order failed to follow the rules on the return requirements under Wisconsin Statutes. In March of 2014 the termination proceeding was held, and the jury decided that the Department proved the remaining two grounds for termination of Shannon’s parental rights. Shannon requested the circuit court judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court granted her request based on the fact that the jury’s verdicts were tainted with incorrect entries from the September 2012 dispositional orders. In April of 2014, Shannon requested the circuit court remove the termination of parental rights because of the court’s dismissal of the verdicts of the jury. The court agreed to her request, and in May of 2014 orders were placed remembering the faulty verdicts and Shannon was given back her parental rights. The Department appeals.

Minnesota Supreme Court Holds that Former Life Partner Entitled to Visitation Rights as a Co-Parent.

Student Name: Robyn Thielman Link for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11186880552874682162&q=child+custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,24 Title: Minnesota Supreme Court Holds that Former Life Partner Entitled to Visitation Rights as a Co-Parent. The Minnesota Supreme Court held in SooHoo v. Johnson, 731 NW 2d 815 - Minn: Supreme Court 2007 that the petitioner Nancy SooHoo, who was considered to be mother #2 to the adoptive children of her former partner, Marilyn Johnson, respondent in this case, was entitled to visitation rights with the minor children pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4 (2006), which gives permission to the court to grant reasonable to a person with whom the children have lived with for a period of at least two (2) years. The Respondent, Johnson, challenged the constitutionality of Section 257C.08, subd. 4. The petitioner and second (2nd) mother of two minor children petitioned the district court for visitation rights to the children. The children’s adoptive mother challenged the court’s visitation schedule and the granting of any visitation to the petitioner, as well as the court’s visitation schedule and their order that she attend therapy for her anxiety and tension issues relating to the children. The petitioner, Nancy SooHoo, co-parented the children with the respondent for several years. SooHoo and Johnson recognized themselves as a family unit with two mothers and represented themselves as such to others. SooHoo was significantly involved in the children’s lives, to the extent that she took maternity leave from her job to care for both children upon their arrival in the United States from China. SooHoo was also involved in the selection of child-care providers and schools for the children and shared equally in the daily parenting responsibilities, including dropping off and picking up the children from daycare, helping with homework and school projects, preparing family meals, bringing the children to doctor appointments, being the sole provider for the children when Johnson was away on business, and even took the children to California to visit SooHoo’s extended family, all without objection by Johnson. SooHoo was also named by Johnson as the children’s 2nd mother at their schools and SooHoo was also an active participant in their school conferences. The record further reflects that the children referred to SooHoo as “mommy” and called SooHoo’s parents their grandparents The court ultimately awarded visitation to SooHoo, which included, in addition to weekly visitation, a holiday visitation schedule dividing the major holidays between SooHoo and Johnson, as well as an extended visitation period over the summer months. of one weekend per month to child's maternal grandfather was reasonable. The child saw the grandfather only eight hours per month prior to mother's death. The child was barely two years old at the time of mother's death and was currently seven years old. The visitation awarded to the grandfather was comparable to visitation recommended by guardian ad litem. In awarding this visiation, the Court concluded that Minn. Stat. § 257C.08, subd. 4. is constitutional both on its face and as applied by the District Court. The court ruled that SooHoo who had a significant relationship with the children , was entitled to visitation of the children and concluded that a parent's fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of his or her children carries an assumption with it that the parent is acting in the best interest of the children. Labels for the post: child visitation, best interests of the children

South Dakota: Appeals Court Holds That Parents Stripped of Parental Rights

Link for case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10981514507707285469&q=custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,42&as_ylo=2014 South Dakota: Appeals Court Holds That Parents Stripped of Parental Rights Both mother and father appeal where the courts stripped them of their rights. South Dakota Court of Appeals held in People, In The Interest of MS, 2014 SD 17, that parents are stripped of parental rights. In 2010, DSS conducted a home visit to check in the welfare of the children. DSS found one of the children with scratches under his chin, and substantial bruising on his jawbone. DSS concluded that mother was neglectful in seeking medical care for her son. Mother has a history of drug and alcohol abuse while being pregnant. In one instance, blood tests of the mother revealed over 2000 nanograms of THC in her system, and a blood alcohol content of .184. She was ordered, by a judge, into a treatment program. The mother started the treatment, but then absconded. The judge then ordered that the custody of the older son would go to the father, who lived in Detroit, Michigan. While pregnant again, the mother went to Children's Inn. The facility reported to DSS that mother was using alcohol, marijuana, and ecstasy while pregnant, and also not receiving any prenatal care. When the daughter was born, she tested 65 nanograms of THC in her system. After both mother and father were imprisoned for false impersonation, they lost custody of all 4 children. When released from the system, they were allowed visitation. After being released, a routine traffic stop of the father found him smelling very strongly of marijuana. After blood testing, it was found that he tested positive THC, meth, and amphetamines. These instances were just one of many run-ins with the law for both parents. Eventually, the courts stripped both the mother and father of all parental rights.

Minnesota: Transferring custody between parents

Student Name: Sydney Lener Link for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=544059904083990167&q=custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,24 Title: Minnesota: Transferring custody between parents The Minnesota Court of Appeals held in Anoka County handled a custody case in 1982. The child, Krystal Elizabeth Preuss, was born in May. That December, David Preuss and Sandra Gunderson went to court to determine who got custody of the child. At this point in time, Krystal lived with her mother, Almost a year later, the father brought Sandra to court in order to receive custody of the child. This resulted in a custody evaluation. During the evaluation, it was noted that for the better welfare of the child, that the father would be a better fit for custody of the child. This negatively affected the plaintiff, because in even later trials regarding the case, there was evidence found that the mother was unfit and it was not a good, stable position for the child to be in, The mother appealed this. She claimed it was not enough to modify custody. Section 518.18 does govern the modification of custody orders, In this case, in order to modify custody, the court must find a change occurring in the circumstances of the child, or it being in the best interest of the child, Because they could not find any valid reason to obtain to these rulings, custody was not changed.

Title: Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed contempt of mother for making unilateral decision in joint custody.

Link for opinion: https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I69aa0b459fdc11e39ac8bab74931929c/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad7051f00000149c48d18236c71eafe%3FNav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI69aa0b459fdc11e39ac8bab74931929c%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=32ae2bba1f4e2403d37478bfca6868e2&list=CASE&rank=1&grading=na&sessionScopeId=1e19dfee564bdf4205b021cea0ce42a4&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29 Title: Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed contempt of mother for making unilateral decision in joint custody. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in Marcott v. Marcott, 353 Wis.2d 304 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014) that a parent can be held in contempt of violating a joint custody judgment, despite being the primary caretaker. A couple months after joint custody was established, the mother transferred her two children to a different school district. The father challenged her unilateral decision as it was not a joint decision and made against his knowledge and or consent. During their divorce judgment, it was agreed upon Sara and Lonnie that their children’s custody remain a joint one. Sara was to have primary physical placement. A couple months before the school year, Sara decides to move and enroll the children in a new school district without consenting Lonnie of her decision. The court held that Sara violated the joint custody judgment by taking it upon herself to make a major decision regarding the children; that which was to be shared with Lonnie. According to the court, Sara lacked the authority to make a unilateral decision that relates to both parents. Under WIS. STAT. § 767.001(1s), it is stated that no parent has a superior legal custody right in a joint custody unless otherwise specified in a final court judgment. Therefore Sara was found in contempt and the order was affirmed. Labels: Child Custody, Joint Custody

Minnesota: Court of appeals sides with mother on international child custody case

Minnesota: Court of appeals sides with mother on international child custody case Moyne v. Moyne, N.W. 2d (2014 WL1875905) Facts: Fabrice Jacques-Pierre Moyne (Father) and Shandin Cowle Moyne (Mother) married in Dece;mber of 2003, and later parented two children. They lived together in Eagan, Minnesota until Father moved with the two minor children to France in October 2010. Mother filed for dissolution action in Minnesota on September 20, 2011, the children still living with her at his point. Father followed with filing a dissolution action in France during Decmeber 2011. On December 20, 2011, Mother filed and ex parte motion for custody of their two children in Minnesota, Father then moved to dismiss arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction over this case. The district court found that it did have jurisdiction and ordered joint custody temporarily. The Minnesota district court ended up in favor of Mother and awarded her full legal and physical custody and ordered Father to return the children to Minnesota. The court stated that Mother was the primary caregiver during the marriage and that she provided a stable home back in Minnesota. Issue: Father is arguing whether the Minnesota district court had jurisdiction over the case when him and his children were living in France. He is also fighting the fact that Mother was awarded full custody of the children. Rule of law: “Jurisdiction for dissolution, custody, and support each consider the time period from 180 days or six months prior to the commencement of the action” (Minn.Stat. § 518D.102(f) (2012)). Minnesota has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), Minn.Stat. §§ 518D.101–.317 (2012), The UCCJEA is in place to determine where the child’s “home state” is. And according to the UCCJEA, the child’s home state was in Minnesota, therefor having jurisdiction over this child custody case. In reference to the fact that Mother was awarded full custody, Father chose not to participate in the proceeding for custody except to object to jurisdiction. It was also found that Mother was primary caretaker during the marriage and that Father has committed domestic abuse towards the mother during the marriage. Holding: This case was affirmed.

Court of Appeals Reverses Decision that Grandparents are Interested Third-Parties and Entitled to Custody.

Student Name: Patty Hanson Link for opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16973292343385424352&q=Child+Custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,24&as_ylo=2013 Title: Court of Appeals Reverses Decision that Grandparents are Interested Third-Parties and Entitled to Custody. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held In re Custody of A.L.R., 830 N.W.2d 163 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013) that the paternal grandparents did not prove that there were extraordinary circumstances to warrant them to have sole physical and legal custody of their grandchild. In 2009 a child was born out of wedlock to 17 year-old Jessica Luna and 15 year-old Joseph Ramirez. The mother, Jessica Luna, Appellant, began residing with Respondents while she was pregnant. Appellant continued to live with Respondents and the father after she gave birth to A.L. R. The Appellant is an undocumented immigrant, the father and grandmother are U.S. citizens and the grandfather is a legal resident. In September, 2011, a fight ensued between Appellant and grandmother after which both the Appellant and grandmother requested Orders for Protection against each other. They were both granted by district court. In October an OFP hearing was held and the Order for Protection was dismissed against the grandmother. At the same time Respondents (grandmother and grandfather) filed an emergency ex-parte order petitioning for custody of the child and were granted immediate temporary legal and physical custody of the child. The district court concluded at that time that the grandparents had established that they were interested third parties under Minn. Stat. §257C.03. The court held that the Respondents did not establish that extraordinary circumstances existed thereby classifying them as interested third parties according to Minn. Stat. §257C.03. More specifically, the court held that Respondents did not establish that the Appellant neglected, abandoned, or caused the child physical or emotional harm; that the fact that the mother and father were minors and enrolled in high school when the child was born did not establish extraordinary circumstances; and the fact that the trial court found that the paternal grandmother was the child’s primary caregiver did not establish extraordinary circumstances. The Court reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered the matter back to district court where the issues of transitioning the custody of the child back to the mother and visitation could be addressed. Labels for the Post: child custody, interested third parties, grandparents’ custody

Disclaimer

This website contains information relating to legal ethics composed by Globe Education Network paralegal students to benefit attorneys, paralegals, and the general public. DISCLAIMER - THE CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE DO NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.