Court Filings

The Fifth District reversed and remanded a Seminole County dissolution case because the trial court summarily denied the former husband’s timely motion to vacate a magistrate’s recommended order solely for not providing all trial transcripts. The appellate court held that the rule requires submission of a record or notice of a partial record but also contemplates substantial compliance and a mandatory hearing on a timely motion to vacate. Because the court cancelled the hearing and denied the motion without assessing substantial compliance or allowing the hearing, the denial was reversible error and the case is sent back for further proceedings.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial-court order awarding attorney’s fees to Meagan Garmon in a post-dissolution proceeding and also reversed the denial of Jason Garmon’s rehearing request. The appeals court held that the record lacked competent, substantial evidence demonstrating Former Wife’s need for fee awards. Because the trial court’s finding of need was unsupported, the appellate court reversed the fee award, relying on Florida precedent requiring competent evidence of need before awarding attorney’s fees in family-law matters.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed a juvenile court’s orders on parenting time, modification of a shared-parenting plan, and a contempt finding. The appellate court affirmed most rulings: it upheld the denial of Mother’s motion to terminate the shared-parenting agreement and the juvenile court’s decision not to further modify parenting time based on the record and the guardian ad litem’s findings. However, the court reversed the contempt finding against Mother because she established a reasonable, good-faith basis for withholding Father’s parenting time due to concerns about his housing, utilities, and alleged substance use and she promptly sought court intervention. The remainder of the juvenile court’s orders were left intact.

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County trial court's July 21, 2025 judgment denying appellant Christina Bushong's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. The court held that the parties' November 17, 2023 memorandum of agreement did not itself dismiss the case because no journalized dismissal entry was filed, so the trial court retained jurisdiction to resolve the child-support issues. The court also found appellant failed to timely appeal the June 24, 2025 judgment adopting a magistrate's contempt decision, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review that portion of the proceedings.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Part's April 4, 2025 order reinstating and enforcing child support arrears owed by Shawn J. Harris to his ex-wife, Della M. Bournes. The court found New Jersey properly registered and enforced a Texas child-support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and that a November/October 2024 administrative USSO that closed enforcement improperly vacated arrears. Because the anti-retroactivity statute does not bar cancelling or reinstating arrears tied to a child's emancipation and Harris never obtained a retroactive reduction by court motion, the judge correctly reinstated arrears and denied Harris's cross-motion.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Family Court orders that found respondent mother neglected her eldest child and derivatively neglected two other children. The court concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother choked the eldest child, pulled and ripped the child's shirt, and caused scratches; the child’s out-of-court statement was corroborated by a caseworker’s observation and photographs. The court also found the mother committed acts of domestic violence during the same incident and that the other children were present, supporting derivative neglect because the mother’s conduct created a substantial risk of harm.

The Appellate Division reviewed Family Court's partial denial of a mother's petition to remove a prohibition on her partner's contact with her child. The court found the mother's sobriety constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to permit a full best-interests review, but concluded Family Court reasonably kept the no-contact provision in place because the child remained affected by the mother's past alcohol-related incidents and expressed reluctance to see the partner. The Appellate Division modified the order to allow the mother to seek removal of the prohibition after six months without proving a new change, and otherwise affirmed.

The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court's July 2, 2024 order modifying custody and parenting time for a child born in 2011. Family Court awarded primary physical custody to the father, granted the grandparents limited monthly visitation plus additional holiday and summer time, and denied the mother's request to convert supervised parenting time to unsupervised time. The appellate court found the visitation schedule supported by the child's best interests given travel burdens and the child's anxiety, and upheld supervised parenting time because the mother had an inconsistent parenting history and was still on a high methadone dosage without other supports.

The Appellate Division (Third Department) affirmed Family Court's March 12, 2025 order terminating the mother's parental rights after adjudicating the child permanently neglected. The child, born in 2019, has autism and developmental delays and has been in foster care since May 2023 following the mother's arrest for driving while intoxicated with the child. The court found the mother repeatedly failed to meaningfully engage in or complete substance abuse treatment, did not make significant progress toward reunification, and that termination — allowing adoption by foster parents who provided stable, therapeutic care — served the child's best interests.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Family Court's March 15, 2023 order awarding the child's maternal grandmother sole legal and physical custody. The father appealed only arguing the judge abandoned neutrality and acted as an advocate for the grandmother. The appellate court found the issue unpreserved because the father did not raise it below, and in any event the record shows the judge's active questioning was appropriate to assist a pro se petitioner and to elicit relevant information. The court concluded there was no judicial bias and affirmed the custody order.

The Appellate Division reversed Family Court's denial of a motion to vacate an order of protection entered by default against Jonathan U. The Family Court had removed respondent's counsel from the courtroom when Jonathan failed to appear for an in-person hearing and declined available alternatives (such as allowing a virtual appearance). The appellate court held that this conduct deprived respondent of the fundamental right to be heard, so the default order of protection was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The Tenth Court of Appeals reviewed Father's appeal of a trial court order terminating his parental rights to four children. Counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous, and Father submitted a pro se response. The appellate court conducted a full review of the record, found sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings that Father violated Family Code §161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and that termination was in the children’s best interest, and affirmed the termination order. The court denied counsel’s motions to withdraw because they did not show independent good cause under Texas law.

The Tenth Appellate District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s bill of review challenging a July 26, 2022 order that terminated his parental rights to A.A.C.C. The Department moved for traditional summary judgment, arguing a six-month statutory bar under Texas Family Code §161.211(a) prevents collateral or direct attacks on such termination orders. Appellant did not file any response to the summary judgment motion. The court held the Department met its burden by showing the termination was under §161.002(b) and the bill of review was filed well after the six-month deadline, so the petition was time-barred.

The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order terminating both parents’ rights to infant Ivy after a jury found, by clear and convincing evidence, statutory grounds D, E, and N and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The Department of Family and Protective Services removed Ivy after she arrived at the hospital with a fractured femur, liver laceration, and bruising; testimony and medical opinions raised serious abuse concerns and showed parental instability and untreated mental-health issues. The court also upheld appointment of the Department as managing conservator and denied Mother’s mistrial claim about an improper juror communication.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Christopher Shootes from a Duval County circuit court domestic relations matter. The appellate court, in a short per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling and cited Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) as the basis for affirmance. No written opinion or extended reasoning was provided; the panel issued a summary affirmance and noted that the decision is not final until any permitted motions for rehearing are resolved.

The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part. After a 2018 marital dissolution divided a retirement asset, the parties signed a stipulation dividing the remaining proceeds. In 2020 the wife (Nishida) sued the husband (Kamoda) in civil court for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging he misrepresented his employment status to induce the stipulation. The civil court transferred the case to family court, which dismissed as time-barred and denied leave to amend; the Court of Appeal held the dismissal and denial of leave were erroneous because the complaint was timely under Family Code section 2122(a) and transfer resolved any jurisdictional problem. The court affirmed the civil court’s grant of relief from default to Kamoda under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).

The Court of Appeals dismissed a direct appeal by Tyrone Eric Taylor-Shorter challenging a trial court’s orders in a child support action brought by the Georgia Department of Human Services. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because appeals in domestic relations matters, including actions to establish parental support obligations, must be pursued by discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(2). Because Taylor-Shorter did not follow the discretionary-appeal procedure, the court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of his challenges.

The Appellate Division reversed part of a divorce judgment that enforced a 2015 postnuptial agreement and remitted the case for a hearing. The defendant had sought to set aside the agreement, alleging limited English, that his lawyer did not review the document and was later disbarred for fraud, and that he thought he was signing a business document. The appellate court found triable issues about whether the agreement was fair and about the circumstances of its execution, so the trial court's denial without a hearing could not stand and a new hearing is required to determine whether the postnuptial agreement should be set aside.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order modifying custody and access in related Family Court Act articles 6 and 8 proceedings. After a hearing and an in-camera interview with the child, the Family Court found the father committed assault in the third degree and menacing in the second and third degrees against the child, awarded the mother final decision-making authority, limited the father's parenting time to therapeutic supervised access, denied the father's cross-petition to change custody, and issued a two-year order of protection for the child. The appellate court found no deprivation of the father's right to counsel and found no reversible error.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order resolving where a child should attend school. The parents, who share joint legal custody and alternate weekly parenting time, could not agree on school district enrollment. After a hearing, Family Court granted the father's petition to enroll the child in the South Huntington Union Free School District and denied the mother's petition to enroll the child in the Hauppauge Union Free School District. The appellate court found the Family Court's best-interests determination had a sound and substantial basis, citing the child's benefit from a diverse environment and likely residential stability with the father.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed an amended Family Court order finding the mother neglected one child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment and derivatively neglected the other child. Appeals challenging the release of the children to the father and the dismissal of the mother's custody and visitation petitions were dismissed as academic because subsequent Virginia proceedings and the expiration of supervision rendered those parts moot. The court upheld the directive that the mother submit to a comprehensive mental health evaluation, finding it to be in the children's best interests and supported by the evidence and credibility findings below.

The Appellate Division dismissed an appeal from a Family Court order that granted the respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss a Family Court Act article 8 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Family Court concluded the parties did not have an intimate relationship under Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). Because the dismissal order was entered after the petitioner defaulted and CPLR 5511 bars appeals entered on a default, the Second Department held the petitioner must first move to vacate the default before seeking review, so the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order granting joint custody of a child to the father and the maternal aunt after a combined permanency and fact-finding hearing. The mother appealed, arguing the court failed to ensure she knowingly waived her right to counsel when her appointed lawyer was relieved. The court found that although the Family Court did not conduct the required detailed inquiry at the time of counsel’s withdrawal, the mother’s pattern of conduct — frequent failures to appear, multiple successive attorneys, and delays — supported a finding she forfeited her right to assigned counsel, and the evidence would not have changed the outcome.

The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court orders awarding sole residential and legal custody of a child (born 2013) to the child's paternal aunt and denying the mother's custody petition. The aunt had cared for the child continuously since February 2018 after the mother was arrested and incarcerated and had filed for custody in October 2018; the mother filed her own custody petition in 2021. The court found the aunt proved "extraordinary circumstances" that overcame the parent's superior right and, after considering the child's best interests, concluded the aunt was better able to provide stability and meet the child's needs.

The Appellate Division reversed a Family Court finding that the father willfully violated a child support order and vacated the related commitment order, remitting the case for a new hearing. The court concluded the father was deprived of his statutory and constitutional right to counsel because the Support Magistrate failed to secure a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver or to inquire about assigning new counsel after the father's assigned lawyer was relieved. Because the record shows the father protested lack of counsel and lacked basic understanding of proceedings, reversal was required regardless of the merits.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas dismissed an unopposed voluntary motion by appellant D.E.P. to dismiss an appeal from a final order in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (child referred to by initials). The court found the motion complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), that granting dismissal would not prejudice any party, and no appellate decision had been issued. The court granted the motion, dismissed the appeal, declined to entertain a rehearing motion, and ordered issuance of its mandate immediately.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a dependency case involving children E.W., C.M., and C.C. with J.R.B. as the appellant and the Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office as appellees. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision and affirmed the lower court's ruling. No additional reasoning or changes to the trial court's orders were provided in the published opinion; the panel concurred and the judgment stands as affirmed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment in a divorce case. The court affirmed most issues raised by Husband but reversed two rulings affecting Wife: the denial of retroactive child support and the omission of family photographs and videos from equitable distribution. The court found the record contained uncontroverted evidence of the child’s needs and Husband’s ability to pay, and held that family photographs and videos created or acquired during the marriage are marital assets. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine the retroactive support amount and to include and distribute the photographic materials.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a dissolution of marriage judgment after both parties appealed. The appellate court found multiple deficiencies in the trial court’s final judgment — missing asset and liability designations, insufficient factual findings (including valuation of the husband’s law practice, temporary support modification, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees) — but concluded many issues were preserved by a timely motion for rehearing. The court also held the trial court erred in treating a premarital Wells Fargo brokerage account as marital property because the record shows marital funds used to pay a secured margin loan were traceable and did not commingle the account except possibly for a de minimis amount. The matter was remanded for specific findings and correction of errors.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal filed by the father in a child-custody or juvenile case (LC No. 25JV0018) and denied the application on April 28, 2026. The order is brief and administrative: the court declined to exercise its discretionary review power and did not provide additional explanation or address the merits of the underlying juvenile-court proceedings. The denial leaves the lower-court action in place and does not create precedent on the substantive issues in the case.