Review of the Year 2019 in Family Law: Case Digests

• Pages: 395-445

395

Review of the Year 2019 in Family Law:

Case Digests

Abortion

Colorado. Norton v. Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc., 409 P.3d 331

(Colo. 2018). The court held that the state did not violate Colorado’s constitutional

provision, § 50, prohibiting the use of public funds to pay for the performance of

any induced abortion. Further, the state does not violate this provision by paying

or reimbursing an entity for services for non-abortion medical services—even

if the provider uses its income to subsidize operations of a facility that offers

abortion services.

Iowa. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds ex rel. State, 915 N.W.2d

206 (Iowa 2018). Iowa statute requiring that a woman wait a mandatory seventy-

two hours to receive an abortion after initial consultation was challenged by health

care provider. The supreme court held the statute required strict scrutiny review

because it affected a fundamental right (right to abortion) and, as a result, violated

substantive due process under the Iowa Constitution and equal protection.

Adoption

Alaska.  , 420 P.3d

1175 (Alaska 2018). Several months after consenting to the adoption of his

children, Father motioned to withdraw his consent. The superior court denied

the motion, determining that withdrawal of Father’s consent would not be in

the children’s best interest. Father appealed. The appeals court upheld the lower



court.

Matter of Adoption of E.H., 431 P.3d 1190 (Alaska 2018). Maternal grandparents

and foster parents entered into a settlement agreement regarding children,

which was incorporated into foster parents’ adoption decree. The grandparents

moved to enforce the settlement agreement and vacate the adoption. Holding

that the vacation of the adoption decree was warranted, the court noted that the

Published in Family Law Quarterly, Volume 53, Number 4, Winter 2020. © 2020 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.

396 Family Law Quarterly, Volume 53, Number 4, Winter 2020

       

misrepresentation of their intent to abide by the agreement’s visitation provisions.

Hawaii. W.N. v. S.M., 424 P.3d 483 (Haw. 2018). Both of the parties entered into

a relationship in 2009 and decided to bring one of their granddaughters into the

family and raise her as their own daughter. One of the parents legally adopted

the child, and both of them assumed joint custody of the child. Upon dissolution

of the relationship, the parent who legally adopted the child sought to take

full custody. The court held that an evidentiary hearing is required on remand,

statements by the child in visitation reports were not hearsay, and the exclusion

of the psychologist’s progress notes about the former partner constituted abuse.

Indiana. E.B.F. v. D.F., 93 N.E.3d 759 (Ind. 2018). Mother’s consent was required

for Stepmother to adopt a minor child. Mother had shared legal custody of her

child, who primarily lived with his father and stepmother. (Child grew up with

Mother but moved to Father’s after Mother became unemployed, drug dependent,

and in an abusive relationship.) During year where Mother recovered from drug

abuse, gained employment, and found housing, she had no contact with her child.

            

of the child without Mother’s consent due to a prerequisite year of no-contact

requirement. The court found that while the prerequisite was met, Mother’s

consent was required because her willingness to distance herself while recovering

       

communicate, and because Father and Stepmother blocked Mother’s attempts to

communicate with her son.

Kansas. In re Adoption of C.L., 427 P.3d 395 (Kan. 2018). In 2016, Mother found

out she was pregnant and gave birth on the same day. Mother opted to put the

   

her parental rights to the baby. The baby was placed with prospective adoptive

parents, and a social work supervisor called the man believed to be the father of

the baby to convince him to relinquish his parental rights as well. Father asked

to meet the baby and was told by the social work supervisor that any meetings

        

adoption petition and requested termination of Father’s parental rights one day

  

action. The court asked Father to take a paternity test, and Father was determined

to be the father. Father was then asked why he had not attempted to support or

contact his child despite not knowing about the pregnancy, not knowing the

identity of the prospective adoptive parents, and not being informed of any way

he could support or contact the child through the adoption agency. The lower

court ultimately decided Father’s rights should be terminated because he failed

to support or communicate with his child, and the adoption was processed. The

Kansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision because Father asked

the social work supervisor about seeing the baby and prepared at home to support

Published in Family Law Quarterly, Volume 53, Number 4, Winter 2020. © 2020 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.

Case Digests 397

the child. Father had also attempted to establish paternity but was preempted from

 

petition he was not served with until three days before trial. The Kansas Supreme

Court determined Father’s actions did not show he did not attempt to support or

contact his child.

Maine. Adoption of Paisley, 178 A.3d 1228 (Me. 2018). Paisley was placed with a



became unavailable, Paisley became available for adoption. The foster parents

        

for adoption. The foster parents were granted the adoption of Paisley, and the

adoptive parents appealed. At issue was the whether the Department acted

reasonably by not consenting to the foster parents adopting Paisley and whether

the court abused its discretion in allowing expert witness testimony. The court

 

was in Paisley’s best interests.

Adoption of Parker, 185 A.3d 51 (Me. 2018). Parker’s biological parents had

their parental rights terminated. Parker’s paternal grandmother, Parker’s maternal

        

petitions for adoption. Adoption was granted to Parker’s paternal grandmother

and her partner even though the partner had not petitioned for adoption. The

court vacated the adoption order because the adoption was granted jointly to the

  

adoption. Because the adoption was granted jointly, it could not be severed in

favor of the paternal grandmother and was remanded.

Mississippi. In re Adoption of D.D.H., No. 2016-CA-01530-SCT, 2018 WL

372381 (Miss. Jan. 11, 2018). Mother and putative father petitioned for the

adoption of child by putative father. In the same petition, Mother and putative

father also sought to allow child’s biological mother to retain parental rights. The

lower court denied the petition on the grounds that putative father failed to join

his wife in the petition as required by statute. The lower court also stated that the

request that mother’s rights not be terminated was inconsistent with the purpose

      

father was required to join his wife in the petition for adoption, but found that

the statute did permit adoption of the child while the biological mother retained

parental rights. The case was remanded with instructions to (1) enable the putative

father’s wife to join the petition and (2) perform a best interest analysis regarding

the adoption.

Nevada. Mulkern v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. ex rel. Cty. of Clark, 429 P.3d 277

(Nev. 2018). A baby was born and subsequently placed into foster care. The infant

had an older half-sister who had been adopted. The adoptive mother of the infant’s

older half-sister sought adoptive placement, as did the infant’s current foster

parents. There exists a rebuttable presumption that a dependent child’s placement

Published in Family Law Quarterly, Volume 53, Number 4, Winter 2020. © 2020 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.