Court Filings

The Appellate Court affirmed the Cook County circuit court’s termination of T.M.’s parental rights to her four children. The mother argued her right to counsel and due process were violated when her attorney’s late motion to withdraw was granted two days before trial and the court required her to proceed that day with the withdrawing lawyer acting as standby counsel. The court found the withdrawal violated Rule 13 but held there was no due process violation because standby counsel actively represented the mother, the mother had a history of noncooperation with counsel, and delay would have harmed the children. The court also found sufficient evidence that terminating parental rights served the children’s best interests given their stable placements, bond with caregivers, and wishes to be adopted.

The appellate court affirmed the domestic relations trial court's dismissal of a husband's objections to a civil protection order (DVCPO) as moot. The husband challenged the trial court's finding that two alleged lasting harms — loss of a military housing entitlement and revocation of Global Entry — were not proven collateral consequences of the DVCPO. The appeals court held the husband provided only speculative testimony and no documentation linking the DVCPO to those consequences, so the collateral-consequences exception to mootness did not apply and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s August 6, 2025 judgment awarding permanent custody of three children to the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services (JFS) and denying the maternal aunt’s request for legal custody. The children were removed after deplorable home conditions and prior dependency adjudications; parents made minimal progress on case plans and mother admitted ongoing drug use. The appellate court found no reversible error in notice to the father, held the mother lacked standing to challenge denial of the aunt’s motion, and concluded the record supported that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by K.H. concerning a dependency matter involving the child Z.A. The Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office were appellees. After considering the record and arguments, the court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower circuit court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended discussion of facts or legal reasoning and simply affirms the trial court's decision without published opinion.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a family/domestic case (circuit court for Polk County) in which Ernie Blazeff appealed from an order involving Vladimir Ohayon. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'AFFIRMED' and citing Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). No additional factual findings or substantive reasoning are provided in the opinion; the panel unanimously concurred. The clerk notes the opinion is not final until the rehearing period expires.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce between Chukwuemeka Carl Runyon and Bianca Bazile Runyon. After a bench trial, the trial court divided the community estate, appointed both parents joint managing conservators, gave the mother the right to determine the child’s primary residence (with a geographic restriction allowing residence in Brazos County or within 50 miles of Orlando, Florida), and ordered father to pay $1,840 per month in child support. The court found no abuse of discretion in the property division, the relocation decision, or the refusal to grant a child-support credit for travel expenses, given the record and applicable family-law standards.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights to twin children R.H. and E.H. after reviewing an accelerated appeal challenging whether termination was in the children’s best interest. The court applied Texas statutory standards and Holley factors, giving deference to factfinder credibility determinations. It found clear-and-convincing evidence the mother’s persistent methamphetamine use, failure to comply with services and testing, association with an abusive partner, and instability endangered the children and made reunification unsafe. The children were bonded with and well-cared for by their maternal aunt and her husband.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s enforcement order and final judgment enforcing a divorce decree property award in favor of Pamela Sheehan. George Sheehan had spent or moved funds that the divorce decree had awarded from a specific bank account, so the trial court converted the award into a money judgment for $64,601.44 plus $6,200 in attorney’s fees. The appeals court held the enforcement judgment was a permissible enforcement remedy under the Family Code, not an unauthorized modification of the divorce decree, and the award of attorney’s fees was authorized.

The Court of Appeals of the Second Appellate District of Texas affirmed a trial court order terminating Father’s parental rights to A.S. after a bench trial. Mother had petitioned to terminate, alleging Father failed to support the child and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The appellate court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Father failed to provide support in accordance with his ability during the relevant twelve-month period and that termination was in A.S.’s best interest, noting the child’s distress over visits, the child’s improved well-being since visits stopped, and Father’s financial choices and reliance on his fiancée to pay household expenses.

The Texas Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to her child, T.C.-J., after the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services removed the child due to suspected prenatal and ongoing methamphetamine exposure. The jury found statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The appellate court rejected Mother’s challenges because she failed to preserve complaints about the sufficiency of the best-interest evidence and about admission of prior Department history by not making the required trial objections or motions.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Family Court's November 25, 2024 order allowing respondent's assigned counsel to withdraw and denying the respondent further assigned counsel in a Family Court Article 8 family offense proceeding. The court found the record shows respondent received notice and opposed the withdrawal, but the attorney-client relationship had irretrievably broken down because respondent repeatedly accused counsel of acting against him and engaged in conduct that frustrated representation. Because respondent had a persistent pattern of causing breakdowns with multiple assigned attorneys, the court concluded further appointments would be futile and that he forfeited the right to additional assignment here.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order in a family-law matter between Maschelle Adrianne Pugh (appellant, pro se) and Eric Paul Pugh (appellee). The appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit (Martin County) was reviewed and the appellate panel issued a per curiam decision simply stating 'Affirmed.' No additional reasoning or changes to the lower court's judgment were provided in the published entry. The decision will become final after any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The court affirmed a default final order terminating or modifying parental rights after Mother obtained substituted service and a default hearing while Father did not appear. Father filed a restricted appeal arguing substituted service and service returns were defective, certain certificates were filed prematurely, and the clerk failed to send notice of judgment. The court concluded Father met the procedural requirements for a restricted appeal, found his briefing on several points inadequate, and determined nothing in the record showed error on its face; therefore the trial court’s default final order was affirmed.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to four children. The Department had filed for termination after repeated removals tied to Mother’s chronic methamphetamine use and related instability, including leaving a child in a home with a person against whom a protective order had been obtained. The appellate court found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support statutory grounds (D) and (E) — that Mother’s conduct and the children’s environment endangered their physical and emotional well‑being — and also held termination was in the children’s best interests based on the children’s repeated disruptions, their expressed desire to remain with relatives, and the relatives’ ability to provide permanency.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s orders placing N.D. in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board (CSB) and placing K.D. in the legal custody of the parents of her friend. The appeals came after contested juvenile proceedings in which the children were adjudicated abused and dependent due to Father’s physical and verbal mistreatment and Mother’s long absence and history of untreated mental illness/substance abuse. The appellate court held CSB proved an alternative statutory ground that the child could not be placed with either parent and found the placements were in the children’s best interests given parental noncompliance and the children’s expressed wishes.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights to his six-year-old son, Z.A.A., and leaving the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) as sole managing conservator. DFPS sought termination so the child’s maternal great-grandfather, who had provided long-term stable care and planned to adopt, could become permanent conservator. The court found by clear-and-convincing evidence that DFPS made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with father and that termination was in the child’s best interest given father’s repeated incarcerations, criminal history, lack of contact, and the child’s improved stability in the great-grandfather’s home.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Perry County Domestic Relations Court’s ruling that the pending divorce action abated when the husband (plaintiff) died before any adjudication on the merits. The couple originally filed for dissolution with a separation agreement, the matter was converted to divorce, but no evidentiary hearing or decree occurred before the husband’s death. Because no judicial decision existed that could be journalized after death, the appeals court held the trial court lacked authority to continue the divorce and properly closed the case.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's grant of permanent custody of John to the Butler County Department of Jobs and Family Services. Mother appealed, arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that her trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to place John with a relative. The court found Mother had abandoned John by failing to maintain contact for more than 90 days and previously lost custody of a sibling, facts that relieved the Agency of reunification obligations and supported a permanent-custody award. The court held Mother's subsequent rehabilitation was insufficient to overcome those statutory factors.

The Ohio appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s July 3, 2025 order granting Allen County Children Services Board permanent custody of J.H., a child born in August 2023. The Agency originally removed J.H. at birth after the mother tested positive for multiple controlled substances and the child suffered withdrawal; J.H. remained in Agency care for over a year. The court found clear and convincing evidence that reunification was not likely within a reasonable time, that J.H. was bonded to his foster family, and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. The mother’s request for a short extension to obtain housing was denied as an abuse of discretion did not occur.

The First District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s final decree terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to four minor children. The parents argued lack of jurisdiction due to timing and challenged the sufficiency of evidence on reasonable efforts, predicate grounds, and best interest. The appellate court held the earlier trial commencement was not a sham, so jurisdiction was proper. The court found clear-and-convincing evidence that both parents engaged in conduct and allowed conditions that endangered the children (Family Code §161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E)) and that termination served the children’s best interests given parental substance abuse, violence, instability, probation violations, incarceration, and the children’s special needs.

The Court of Appeals of the Eighth District of Texas affirmed a trial court judgment that terminated the father's parental rights to his child, J.K.C. After a bench trial the trial court found termination was in the child's best interest and that the Department of Family and Protective Services proved grounds under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (N). Appellate counsel reviewed the record under Anders procedures and the court conducted an independent review, finding no non-frivolous issues to support reversal. The court also denied counsel's motion to withdraw, preserving the father's right to appointed counsel through further review.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the Montgomery County trial court's ruling overruling Jonathan Search's objections to a magistrate's decision about parenting time and medical-expense accounting. Father had sought contempt findings, enforcement, and suspension of child support, and filed a self-prepared transcript with his objections. The appellate court held the parenting-time claims moot because the child reached age 18 before the trial court ruled, found no reversible error in the trial court rejecting the uncertified transcript and adopting the magistrate's findings, and determined the dismissal without prejudice of the medical-expense claim left no final order for appeal.

The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the Miami County Common Pleas Court's adoption of a magistrate’s decision that denied Latrisha McGhee’s post-decree motions concerning child custody, visitation, and related relief, and that suspended her parenting time. The appellate court held the appeal despite McGhee proceeding pro se, finding her appellate brief failed to comply with Ohio Appellate Rule 16 and did not present coherent arguments showing trial-court error. Because meaningful review was impossible, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision.

The Texas court of appeals affirmed a trial court order terminating S.A.’s parental rights to her infant daughter, B.G.A.Y. The Department of Family and Protective Services removed the child after she tested positive for opioids and methadone at birth and after evidence of parental heroin and cocaine use. At trial the caseworker testified S.A. failed to complete treatment, had sporadic contact with the Department, did not visit during conservatorship, and did not submit to drug testing. The court found statutory grounds for termination and concluded termination was in the child’s best interest, given the parents’ substance abuse and the child’s stable foster placement with prospective adoptive caregivers.

The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a Texas divorce suit after the trial court recognized a prior Mexican divorce decree. The ex-husband filed the Mexican no-fault divorce and later presented the Mexican trial and appellate judgments in Texas, arguing the Texas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the parties were no longer married. The Texas appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving comity to the Mexican judgment, concluding the Mexican appellate court’s affirmation meant no valid marriage existed for a Texas court to dissolve, so dismissal was proper.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to two children, Timothy (11) and Richard (5), and appointing the Department of Family and Protective Services as permanent managing conservator. The parents raised multiple challenges, including untimely trial, insufficiency of evidence on best interest and statutory predicate grounds, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a constitutional strict-scrutiny claim. The court found the trial was timely, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination and best-interest findings, Father received effective counsel, and existing procedural and substantive protections were adequate to address his constitutional complaint.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a Midland County trial court’s final divorce decree awarding spousal maintenance to Aletha Marie Dominguez. Oscar Dominguez argued (1) the maintenance award was unsupported and (2) the decree improperly limited his ability to seek future modification. The appeals court found the evidence, including testimony, financial statements, and the trial court’s findings, supported the determination of Aletha Marie’s minimum reasonable needs ($5,200/month) and that she lacked sufficient property at dissolution. The court also held any perceived restriction on seeking modification was moot or a permissible discretionary periodic-review provision.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court’s order keeping a one-year civil domestic violence protection order (DVCPO) in place against B.S. (“Stepfather”). Father filed for the DVCPO after Stepfather pushed his son T.H. into a wall twice in November 2024, causing a concussion; CCDCFS substantiated physical abuse and a municipal temporary protection order accompanied a related criminal case. The magistrate found the child-abuse evidence credible and the trial court overruled Stepfather’s objections. The appellate court held the continuance and the DVCPO were not an abuse of discretion and were supported by the record.

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision granting permanent custody of two-year-old A.S. to Franklin County Children Services (FCCS), thereby terminating the parental rights of mother L.S. After FCCS filed for permanent custody following nearly two years of involvement because of mother’s mental-health crises, housing instability, and inconsistent engagement with case-plan requirements, the juvenile court found permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. The appeals court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a day-of-trial continuance and that mother failed to show she received ineffective assistance of counsel or that any alleged deficiency prejudiced her case.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s September 9, 2025 decision awarding Lucas County Children Services (LCCS) permanent custody of the minor E.D.-P. The child had been adjudicated dependent and temporarily placed with paternal relatives in Texas; LCCS later sought permanent custody. The appellate court held the juvenile court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) applied because Mother had previously had parental rights involuntarily terminated to a sibling and failed to prove she could now provide a legally secure, adequate permanent placement. The court found Mother remained cohabiting and dependent with the child’s father, who showed no engagement in parenting, and the record supported the juvenile court’s findings that reunification was not feasible within a reasonable time.