Title: Alaska: Supreme Court holds Joshua pays more child support. BY: Shelia

Case Name, Citation, and Court: The Supreme court held in Childs v. Childs, No. S-14643., (Supreme Court of Alaska. 2013) that Joshua Childs,ex husband of Christina Childs, orders modification in child support in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the court. Key Facts: In 2005, the mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children and the father was ordered to pay child support of $540.85. In 2011 Christina filed a motion to modify child support , contending Joshua's income had increased and that an upward modification was warranted.In 2012, the superior court ordered the modification without first holding an evidentiary hearing. The new award Joshua was ordered to pay Christina $901 per month for both children. Joshua appeals.Joshua appeals, raising three arguments. First he was entitled to a stay of the child support modification proceeding under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.Second his right to due process was violated because the mother did not use certified mail to serve him and because the superior court ordered modification of child support without first holding a hearing.Third argues that the superior court abused its discretion in calculating his child support obligation to include his Basic Allowance for Housing. Issue: Whether a trial court violated a party's due process rights is a question of law? Rule: Civil Rule 90.3 provides that a trial court must calculate a "parent's total income from all sources". Berkbigler v. Berkbigler, the question whether a military housing allowance qualifies as income is expressly addressed by the commentary to Civil Rule 90.3. Analysis The court held that: There was no violation of the service-members Civil Relief Act. Joshua's right to due process was not violated. Joshua had notice of the child support proceeding. There was no disputed facts to merit a hearing. The superior court's child support award complied with the parental income guidelines in Alaska Civil Rule 90.3.Conclusion:

Arkansas Court of Appeals Holds that Circuit Court Did Not Err in Granting Father Custody. BY: Stacie P.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals held in Woods v. Woods, 2013 Ark. App 448 that the circuit court was not erroneous in granting custody of a child to the father, Josh E. Woods, who worked 24 hour alternating shifts as a firefighter, despite finding that both parties contributed to the downfall of the relationship. The parties separated as a result of the mother, Courtney Woods', extramarital affair in 2011. In June of the same year Josh filed for divorce, alleging general indignities. The Faulkner County Circuit Court found that both parties were fit to have custody of their son, K.W. and that both had complicated work schedules. The court granted custody to Josh and ordered that Courtney pay child support. Throughout the marriage Josh worked at two separate fire departments so that he could financially support Courtney and their son. Josh's work schedule kept him away from home for two 24-hour shifts and allowed him to be home for one full day on a rotating schedule. Courtney was a college student at the University of Central Arkansas pursuing a teaching degree and worked at the daycare that K.W. was enrolled in. The circuit court found that both parties contributed to the downfall of the marriage-Josh by working two jobs and Courtney by "taking advantage of the opportunity of his absence to engage in a relationship with another person" -- but that the end result was the termination of the marriage. The court also considered that the child was in daycare in Mayflower and that the parties agreed that he would attend school in that district. Finally the court considered the employment of the parties and determined that it was true that Courtney would soon receive her degree but there was no guarantee that she would secure a teaching position in Mayflower. Josh testified that he would quit his second job which would allow him more time to care for K.W. and would allow K.W. to attend school in Mayflower. The circuit found it in the best interest of K.W. to reside primarily with his father and that the mother be given the first opportunity to enjoy parenting time with K.W. when Josh was working. In addition Courtney was awarded parenting time that included every-other weekend visitation. The court of appeals held that it the circuit court did not err in considering the best interest of the child when determining that Josh would be the child's primary caregiver. The circuit court's order was affirmed.

Oklahoma: Appeals Court Holds that Father’s Parental Rights Be Terminate BY: Katie S.

The Oklahoma Court of Appeals in In the Matter of L.S., Khanpher v. Oklahoma, (Okla. Civ. App. 2013), held that the appellant’s parental rights to his son, L.S., be terminated. L.S., an alleged deprived child, was born on July 5, 2010. The child tested positive for amphetamines when he was born and was placed in D.H.S. custody. At the time of his birth, the Mother was homeless and the Father was incarcerated on drug related charges. The Mother’s parental rights had previously been terminated and the State sought termination of the Father’s parental rights as well. The Father was court ordered to meet six standards of conduct in order to correct the conditions that led to the deprived adjudication of L.S. The six standards of the Father’s Individualized Service Plan (ISP) included a) to provide a safe, stable, hygienic, appropriately-furnished home; b) demonstrate the ability to provide the necessary guidance and support to meet the child’s emotional, medical, and educational needs; c) complete an approved parental skills counseling course and put learned skills into practice; d) obtain employment sufficient to meet the needs of the child; e) complete a D.H.S. approved drug assessment and program; and f) pay child support of $100/month. Six months later, the State filed an application to terminate the Father’s parental rights alleging that appellant failed to fully satisfy the six standard corrections that led to the adjudication of L.S. In a jury trial, the jury decided to terminate the appellant’s parental rights, finding the child had been adjudicated deprived, Father had caused or contributed to such adjudication, Father had failed to correct the conditions which led to the adjudication of the child although he had been given more than three months to do so, and it was in the child’s best interests that his parental rights be terminated. The Father appealed the trial court’s order in accordance with the jury’s verdict. The Father argued that the order terminating his parental rights is fundamentally deficient because it fails to identify the specific statutory basis upon which the State relied in order to terminate his parental rights; it did not identify the conditions Father failed to correct which led to the order of adjudication, and the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence in support of the termination of his parental rights. The Oklahoma Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Father’s trial court terminating the parental rights to L.S.

Michigan: appeals Court Dismisses Grandparents Petition Katherine S.

Link for opinion: http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20130611_C306562(38)_RPTR_89d-306562-FINAL.PDF Title: Michigan: Appeals Court dismisses the Grandparents petition for grandparenting time The Michigan Court of Appeals held in Porter v. Hill, 2013 Mich. App. LEXIS 1030 (Mich. Ct. App. June 11, 2013) the grandparents of two minor children whose father had passed away has no grandparenting time, or known as grandparent visitation with the two minor children. The son of the grandparents, the father of the two minor children passed away. At the time of the father’s death he held no legal parent right of the children. His rights as a parent were involuntarily terminated due to his abuse of the children. The father had no input on the two children’s and had a court order as to not have any input on the two children’s lives. This case is between the grandparents and the mother of the two children. The grandparents filed a petition seeking an order for grandparenting time. The mother then filed a motion for summary disposition. The mother argued that the grandparents had no right to have any visitation of the children because the legal standing of the father not being a legal parent. The court agreed with the mother’s argument, which is what caused the grandparents to appeal the case. The outcome of the case is that the grandparents being the father’s parents also gave up their rights as grandparents through the father. The father dying had no change in that fact. The father was not a legal parent, meaning that the grandparents were not legal grandparents and had no right to seek grandparenting time. The court then confirmed the dismal of the grandparent’s petition for grandparenting time.

Title: Texas Court Modifies Parent-Child Relationship Due to Mothers Abuse BY: Colleen

In re L.C.L., 396 S.W. 3d 712 (Tex. Ct. App. 2013). No. 05-11-00377-CV. In the Interest of L.C.L., a minor child, the Dallas Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order in the suit to modify the parent-child relationship. The trial court found there was a history of violence towards L.C.L. by M.L., the child’s mother. The court appointed P.L., the father of L.C.L., as the sole managing conservator of the child, and ordered that M.L.'s periods of possession of L.C.L. be supervised access by a professional supervisor. In 1999, P.L. and M.L, divorced, and they were appointed joint managing conservators of L.C.L. In 2009, P.L, filed a motion to modify the parent-child relationship in order to seek appointment as sole managing conservator of L.C.L. because of M.L.’s physical abuse towards L.C.L. M.L. argues that the evidence of a pattern of violence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's findings and orders. There was close to a dozen prior hearings on this case during the two-year period preceding and during this suit. M.L. contended that the events alleged did not meet the definition of family violence. She further argues that the alleged events were disciplinary in nature and that there was no evidence that L.C.L. was injured. However, L.C.L reported to mental health professionals involved that his mother, M.L., had grabbed his lips and pulled them with her fingernails towards her, grabbed his arm with her fingernails, scratched his back, and slapped him. A mental health professional corroborated L.C.L.’s reports and confirmed that he was still fearful of his mother, M.L., and he believed L.C.L. would be in danger if he was alone with M.L. Texas Family Code provides what constitutes as "family violence" and that even a single act of violence or abuse can constitute a history or pattern of physical abuse. Therefore, the reported events do meet the definition of family violence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion because some evidence of violence and abuse exists to support the trial court's judgment. At the time joint managing conservator of L.C.L. was given it was presumed to be in his best interest. Under the Texas Family Code, a trial court may modify conservatorship of a child if the modification is in the child's best interest and/or when a court finds that there has been and is a history of family violence. The appeals court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it appointed P.L. as the sole managing conservator of the child. In addition, supervised visits are needed since it is not in the best interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation with the child if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of physical abuse.

California: Court of Appeal Finds Agency Did Not Make Good Faith Effort...BY: DIANN Z.

Link for the opinion - http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/D062170.PDF Title – California: Court of Appeal Finds Agency Did Not Make Good Faith Effort, Awards Additional Services to Father In the case of Christopher D. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty., 210 Cal.App.4th 60 (Cal.Ct.App. 2012), the California Court of Appeal determined that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency had failed to provide reasonable child visitation services to the father while he was a patient in a residential drug rehabilitation center. San Diego County filed for termination of the father’s reunification services and paternal rights due to non-completion of drug rehabilitation and additional drug charges. The father filed a petition to stop the termination of services and paternal rights. After an arrest for drug charges, the father was granted child visitation with his minor daughter during his incarceration and subsequent residential drug treatment. The father left the rehabilitation facility two days prior to completion, used drugs, was re-arrested and re-incarcerated. At a review hearing upon the father’s release, the father contested that he did not receive reasonable child visitation services during his in-patient drug rehabilitation, and asked for additional reunification services. Family reunification services include treatment and counseling plans for parents to facilitate their return to the family unit. Child visitation services are an important factor during treatment and rehabilitation. Visitation helps maintain the family bonds which will facilitate a successful parent-child reunification. The California Court of Appeal was faced with deciding if the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency had delivered reasonable child visitation services to the father during his in-patient rehabilitation stay. According to California’s Welfare and Institutions Code § 361.5, it is wrong to deny child visitation to a parent receiving reunification services unless there is sufficient evidence that indicates such visitation would be detrimental to the child. Upon extensive review of the circumstances, the Court of Appeal held that the limited child visitation the father received during his rehabilitation was extremely adverse to him. The court cited the reunification plans which stated the father was to have weekly supervised visits – he had two occurrences during his 12 week stay despite repeatedly asking his social worker for additional visits. The court found that the social worker’s excuses of having too full a caseload and of the father’s facility being too far away did not provide a good faith effort to fulfill the visitation provisions of the reunification plan. The court subsequently reinstated the father’s reunification services, including child visitation during future drug rehabilitation. The court also cancelled the county’s petition for termination of paternal rights against the father.

Nebraska Child Custody-Sole Legal and Physical or Joint Custody...BY: BARBARA W.

Link for opinion: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NECO%2020090130285 Title: Nebraska Child Custody-Sole Legal and Physical or Joint Custody The Nebraska District Court of Appeals held in Kamal v. Imroz, 277 Neb. 116, 759 N.W.2d 914 (2009) that there was no error in their decision to grant full physical and legal custody of a minor child to the mother. Sohel Mohammed Imroz is appealing the Douglas County District court’s decision to award full legal and physical custody of his son to his ex-wife. In December of 2004 Kamal moved out of the apartment she shared with her Husband and into her parent’s home with her son. The couple lived separate lives until July 2006 when Kamal filed for divorce. She filed a motion for a restraining order against her Husband and for sole legal and physical custody of the son, stating her ex-husband could be aggressive and angry, and she feared for her son’s safety as well as fearing he would take their child out of the country to Bangladesh without her consent or knowledge. Other allegations against her ex-Husband included that he would lock her in the apartment for the day while he was at work, that he did not provide for her during their marriage and that he was an Islamic Fundamentalist and wished to raise their son as one. Kamal feared her ex-husband would take their son out of the country to Bangladesh without her knowing, or with her consent. Imroz denied the claims. The facts of the case were that Kamal was working from home and was the primary care-giver for their son. She is an International Student, who is sponsored by her Mother and is seeking to retain her student visa. Imoz is a U.S citizen, working full time. He is seeking joint custody, or sole custody of their son. Both parties’ attorneys have had to be involved with visitation decisions due to high tension between the couple. The courts held that though both Kamal and Imroz were fit to have custody of the child, joint custody was not an option due to the tension between the parents. For their son’s best interest they decided the child should remain in the Mother’s sole custody, as she has a much more flexible schedule working from home, awarded liberal visitation to Imroz, and that neither party will remove the child from the country without the others written consent. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-364(3) (Reissue 2008) States (3) Custody of a minor child may be placed with both parents on a joint legal custody or joint physical custody basis, or both, (a) when both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child or (b) if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent.