Court Filings

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Jessica Witvoet from a Manatee County circuit court decision in a family-related case against Steven Witvoet. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published with this order. The judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed, and the panel of judges concurred.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s final order terminating a mother’s parental rights to her eight children. The appeals court reviewed the record after counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous issues, independently reviewed the record, and agreed the mother’s appeal lacked merit. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the mother endangered the children through substance abuse, constructively abandoned them, and failed to complete court-ordered substance treatment, and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The appeals court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the termination order.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s final order terminating a mother’s parental rights to her child. The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that the mother endangered the child through substance abuse and related conduct, failed to comply with a court-ordered plan, and that termination was in the child’s best interest. Because the legislature repealed one statutory predicate ground after the proceedings began, the court modified the trial court’s written order to delete the now-void finding under subsection (O). The court denied counsel’s withdrawal and required counsel to pursue further appellate remedies if appropriate.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of 10-year-old C.F. to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS), terminating the parental rights of L.Y. (mother) and D.F. (father). The child had been repeatedly removed for concerns including domestic violence, parental substance use, and unmet mental-health and educational needs. The court held that statutory grounds for permanent custody were met and that permanent custody best served the child’s interests because C.F. was thriving in his caregiver J.F.’s home while Mother had not remedied the conditions that led to removal or demonstrated reliable sobriety or engagement with services.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's October 6, 2025 judgment denying Lynette L. Shidaker’s post-judgment motions seeking to reopen or set aside the May 31, 2023 divorce judgment. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Civ.R. 60(B) motion untimely despite being filed within one year, concluding Appellant had known of the asserted grounds earlier and offered no sufficient explanation for delay. The court also rejected Civ.R. 60(A) relief for alleged clerical error in spousal-support calculations and found it lacked jurisdiction to review arguments that should have been raised in a timely appeal from the 2023 judgment.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a juvenile court order changing 13-year-old C.B.’s permanency goal from reunification to subsidized permanent legal custodianship (SPLC). The stepfather, I.Q., appealed and appointed counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. The appellate court found counsel complied with Anders procedural requirements, reviewed the record, and held that the juvenile court’s factual findings and legal conclusions — including that placement remained necessary, reunification efforts were thwarted by the parent’s noncooperation, and C.B. had a strong bond with her foster custodian — were supported by the record. The court granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed the goal change order.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order granting the petitioner nonparent guardianship of A.G., a child placed with the petitioner at birth in August 2018, and dismissed the parents' petitions for custody. The court found the petitioner demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and had been the child’s exclusive caregiver, meeting the child’s needs and fostering a strong bond. The parents had only sporadic or supervised contact, failed to provide financial support or stable housing, and did not show they could plan for the child's return. The court held the guardianship was in the child’s best interests.

The Court of Appeals of the Second Appellate District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s December 10, 2025 order terminating Father’s parental rights to A.M. The Department of Family and Protective Services had petitioned to terminate under multiple statutory grounds. Father challenged one predicate ground and alleged due-process defects in the Department’s timelines and service plan, but he did not challenge the other independent predicate findings or preserve the service-plan complaint for appeal. Because at least one unchallenged statutory ground and the best-interest finding supported termination, the appellate court affirmed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order entered by the Martin County circuit court in a family-law appeal brought by Maschelle Adrianne Pugh. The opinion is short: the panel reviewed the nonfinal order and, without published opinion or extended discussion, affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion notes the disposition is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. The appellant appeared pro se; appellee was represented by counsel.

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Raymond T. DeMeritt’s motion to terminate child-support withholding. DeMeritt, declared the father in a 1985 legitimation decree, sought termination claiming he had overpaid and that garnishment was improper. The Office of the Attorney General submitted accounting reports showing DeMeritt owed arrears and interest; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found DeMeritt owed $30,990.57 as of January 6, 2025. The appeals court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion, noting DeMeritt failed to rebut the OAG’s accounting or meet his burden of proof.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s modification appointing J.A.V.S. as sole managing conservator and C.R. as possessory conservator of two children. The mother, C.R., appealed but repeatedly failed to follow appellate briefing rules, including providing record citations and legal argument. The court struck her initial brief, accepted an inadequate amended brief, and found no reporter’s record for the November 20, 2025 modification hearing, so the appellate record did not show what evidence the trial court considered. Because C.R.’s submissions provided nothing for review, the court affirmed the modification order.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order that, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child (born 2022) and denied the father's petition for joint physical custody. The appellate court found the Family Court's best-interest analysis — emphasizing the mother's greater ability to provide stability, overall well-being, and to foster the child's relationship with the other parent — had a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court also held the Family Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint an attorney for the very young child.

The Appellate Division reviewed Family Court proceedings in which the Administration for Children's Services alleged the father neglected two children. The appeals from the fact-finding and dispositional orders were dismissed in part, and the court affirmed the order of disposition insofar as reviewed. Because the dispositional order was entered on the father's default and has expired by its own terms, appellate review was limited to whether the father neglected the children. The court held that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the father's lack of insight into ongoing mental-health issues and his bizarre and irrational behavior placed the children at imminent risk, supporting the neglect finding.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order finding that the mother neglected her child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment. ACS brought an Article 10 neglect proceeding alleging the mother repeatedly physically, verbally, and emotionally abused the child and on one occasion bit the child's finger, causing an infected human bite mark. The court concluded ACS proved neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, crediting the Family Court's credibility findings and finding the child's out-of-court statements were corroborated by medical records and ACS observations.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order of protection that found the appellant—who had previously surrendered parental rights and agreed to an adoption—committed harassment in the second degree and fourth-degree stalking against the adoptive child. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court directed the appellant to stay away from the child except pursuant to a court-ordered visitation, through December 15, 2026. The appellate court upheld the Family Court’s credibility findings and concluded the evidence met the fair preponderance standard for the charged family offenses.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court order adjudicating 14-year-old Gabriel G. a juvenile delinquent for third-degree robbery and conditionally discharging him for 12 months. The court dismissed as academic the portion of the appeal challenging the 12-month conditional discharge because that period expired, but it reviewed and rejected Gabriel's motion to dismiss the indictment for due process and statutory speedy-trial violations. The court found the five-month pre-arrest delay and the prosecution's discovery timing did not violate constitutional or statutory speedy-trial rights, so dismissal was not required.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order denying a mother's 2023 petition to modify a 2018 custody order to permit her to relocate with her child from New Jersey to Michigan. The parents share joint legal custody and the mother has physical custody. After a hearing, the Family Court found the mother failed to show the move would improve the child's economic or educational circumstances and that it would not harm the child's relationship with the father. The appellate court held that the Family Court's best-interest determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record and upheld the denial.

The court reviewed an appeal by C.H. challenging the actions of the Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Program in a dependency matter involving children J.H. and G.B. After considering the record and arguments, the district court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The decision affirms the circuit court's handling of the dependency-related proceedings without further comment, and the panel of three judges concurred. No additional factual findings or legal analysis are included in the published entry.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights to her infant child, E.T. The Department removed the child shortly after birth when both tested positive for amphetamine and later showed Mother’s continued methamphetamine and other drug use, untreated bipolar disorder, failure to complete court-ordered services, and periods of incarceration and mental-health treatment. The court applied the statutory best-interest factors (Holley factors) and concluded that Mother’s instability, ongoing substance use, untreated mental-health issues, and failure to complete services supported a finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County trial court’s March 27, 2025 judgment that granted intervenor Kelly Moore’s motion for relief from judgment, ordered genetic testing of the older child (L.M.), and denied plaintiff-appellant Joyce Wilson’s motion for reconsideration. Joyce had sought custody of her two grandchildren and argued the court lacked jurisdiction because a 2010 paternity affidavit for the older child established paternity. The appeals court held that Ohio law (R.C. 3119.962) allows challenge to an acknowledgment of paternity via genetic testing and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Moore to intervene despite procedural shortcomings.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County domestic relations court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decisions that established paternity, named Jessica L. Jackson sole residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child J.J., granted parenting time to Rajael H. Tyler, and ordered Tyler to pay about $140 per month in child support. Jackson appealed, alleging evidentiary error and perjury at a child-support hearing, but she did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision. The appellate court declined to consider the hearing transcript not before the trial court and found any unobjected-to errors waived absent a showing of plain error, which Jackson did not raise.

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that 11-year-old K.W. was neglected by his sole custodial parent, M.W., because K.W. suffered physical injuries (including a black eye) while in M.W.’s care and was exposed to an injurious home environment. The court also affirmed the dispositional order making K.W. a ward of the court and setting a 12‑month reunification goal, based largely on M.W.’s refusal to complete a court‑ordered substance abuse assessment despite admissions of recent drinking and past substance abuse and his failure to obtain timely physical and mental health care for K.W. The court credited school and DCFS testimony and found the rulings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Family Court order finding that appellant Carlos M.-J. committed a family offense amounting to second-degree harassment by intentionally bumping into the petitioner, Pascal W. The court upheld the Family Court's credibility findings and sustained the six-month suspended judgment and corresponding six-month order of protection. The appeal was not moot despite the protection order's expiration because the underlying finding can have future legal consequences. The court concluded the evidence met the fair preponderance standard and the protection order was a proper exercise of discretion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for Lake County in a family-law dispute between Thomas B. Symonette (appellant) and Mary Symonette n/k/a Mary M. Bradley (appellee). The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the circuit court's ruling without published opinion or extended explanation. The decision was entered on April 21, 2026, and the panel of judges concurred. The opinion notes that the decision is not final until disposition of any authorized post-judgment motion under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a family law matter between Micaiah Lufcy (appellant) and Sarah Lufcy (n/k/a Tolfa) (appellee). The appeal arose from proceedings in the Seminole County Circuit Court, and the appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion simply stating 'AFFIRMED.' No additional reasoning or factual details are included in the published entry. The panel of judges Wallis, Edwards, and Maciver concurred, and the decision was issued April 21, 2026.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed two nonfinal orders in a family-related proceeding: one denying Elizabeth Collins's motion to disqualify the respondent's trial counsel and a separate order staying the underlying action. The court treated the disqualification matter as an interlocutory appeal under the Florida Rules and affirmed the lower court's denial. The petition challenging the stay order was dismissed. The opinion is short and does not provide detailed reasoning on the merits of the disqualification ruling.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the trial court's judgment in a case where T.M., the father of two minor children, appealed the Department of Children and Families. The appeal arose from proceedings in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. The appellate panel (Rowe, Ray, and Long, JJ.) unanimously concurred and affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion. The mandate is subject to any timely motions authorized by Florida appellate rules.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Clermont County Domestic Relations Court's final divorce decree between Kenyata (Wife) and Chris Packer (Husband). The appellate court upheld the trial court's $480,000 valuation of Husband's 75% interest in his company Rod-Techs, finding the valuation supported by competent, credible evidence from experts and rejecting Husband's challenges under the rules for expert testimony. The court also upheld the property equalization payment of about $80,000 to Wife and the spousal support award of $1,520 per month for 106 months, finding the trial court appropriately considered statutory factors.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's denial of Mother's Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from the adjudication that one child was abused and three were dependent and the related dispositional orders. Mother argued she lacked counsel at critical stages, counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain discovery, the juvenile court failed to comply with procedural safeguards for stipulations, WCCS committed fraud by labeling kinship placements as "foster children" on clothing vouchers, and no safety plan was offered. The appellate court held these claims either were not operative facts warranting an evidentiary hearing, were time-barred or barred by res judicata, and did not satisfy the three-part Civ.R. 60(B) test.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody of three children to the Erie County Department of Job & Family Services. The children were removed after incidents involving domestic violence, unsafe home conditions, and Mother’s criminal charges; Father had minimal contact. The court held the juvenile court properly found the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, that statutory factors (including failure to remedy conditions, lack of commitment, and a qualifying conviction) were met by clear and convincing evidence, and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.