Court Filings

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County in a family-law case between Michelle Lany Yoakum (appellant) and William Lee Tschumy, Jr. (appellee). The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's order. The opinion is brief and cites no reasoning or authorities; the court simply affirmed the trial court's ruling and noted the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion is resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a Lee County family-law case. Appellant Stacy James (pro se) appealed the circuit court's ruling below; the appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 28, 2026, simply stating "AFFIRMED." No additional reasoning or discussion is provided in the opinion, and the panel's judges concurred. Both parties appeared pro se in the appeal. The mandate will issue after the rehearing period expires if no timely motion is filed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Susanne E. Krupa’s direct appeal from a final divorce decree because appeals in divorce and other domestic relations cases must be pursued by discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35. Krupa filed a notice of appeal rather than the required discretionary application, and the court held that compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional. Because Krupa did not follow that procedure, the court granted Timothy E. McLane’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the appeal.

The Warren County Juvenile Court granted Warren County Children Services (WCCS) permanent custody of nine-year-old S.F., rather than returning her to the legal custody of her 74-year-old paternal grandmother. WCCS sought permanent custody after S.F. wandered away from grandmother’s home and exhibited severe behavioral and mental-health problems requiring specialized treatment. The juvenile court found grandmother medically frail, lacking stamina and knowledge to meet S.F.'s needs, and unable to provide the legally secure, specialized care S.F. requires. The appellate court affirmed, concluding the finding was supported by the weight of the evidence and was in S.F.'s best interest.

The Ohio Court of Appeals (Twelfth District) affirmed the probate court's ruling that the child's biological mother must give consent before the child may be adopted by the maternal grandmother. The probate court had found the mother had justifiable cause for failing to provide financial support during the one-year look-back period prior to the adoption petition, and the appellate court held that finding was supported by competent, credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court emphasized that adoption terminates parental rights and exceptions to consent must be strictly construed, and it concluded the mother reasonably believed her financial help was unnecessary because the petitioners provided fully for the child and never sought parental support.

The Superior Court affirmed most of the Berks County custody decision awarding Mother sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the parties’ five-year-old daughter, and awarding Father professionally supervised physical visitation. The court found credible evidence of Father’s history of violence, a validated child-protective-services report, criminal convictions, and allegations of drug-dealing that supported a present risk finding under the custody statute and justified safety restrictions. However, the court reversed a supplemental order (a gag order) that broadly prohibited public discussion about the case because the trial court did not make specific factual findings that Father’s posts had harmed or would imminently harm the child, so the speech restriction failed constitutional scrutiny.

The California Supreme Court reversed the juvenile court’s orders terminating a mother’s parental rights to her two young children and remanded for further proceedings. The juvenile court had ended reunification services and set permanency hearings after finding the children likely to be adopted, but the high court held a likelihood-of-adoption finding alone is not enough to terminate parental rights — the court must also make one of the statutory additional findings or find no applicable exception. The Court also held the mother received ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to assert her statutory right to reunification services for one child and failed to pursue writ review, requiring vacation of those orders and a new hearing.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the juvenile court’s order awarding permanent guardianship of infant A.A. to his paternal grandmother. The Department of Family and Children Services had petitioned for guardianship after dependency proceedings placed the children with the grandparents. The appellate court reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court, found sufficient evidence supporting that reunification efforts would be detrimental and that guardianship served the child’s best interests, and rejected the mother’s procedural and legal challenges as either unpreserved, moot, or without merit.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Chuka Anene’s discretionary application for review of a February 3, 2026 divorce judgment because it was filed outside the 30-day statutory deadline. Anene filed the application on March 27, 2026 — 52 days after entry of the decree — and the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider untimely applications under OCGA § 5-6-35(d). The court therefore dismissed the application as untimely, noting a prior direct appeal by Anene had already been dismissed as improper in divorce cases.

The Montgomery County Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision to grant legal custody of six-year-old P.W. to her father. The child had been adjudicated neglected and dependent after the mother’s arrest and unsafe home conditions; the mother later entered residential drug treatment and had interrupted in-person contact. The father completed assessments and a home study, developed a consistent visitation schedule, and showed stability. The appellate court found the juvenile court reasonably applied Ohio’s best-interest factors and concluded legal custody to father was supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s judgments granting permanent custody of three children (C.P., M.R., and C.R.) to the Montgomery County Department of Jobs and Family Services – Children Services Division (MCCS). MCCS had removed the children for neglect and dependency, obtained temporary custody, and later moved for permanent custody. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that reunification with the mother was unlikely in the foreseeable future and that awarding permanent custody to MCCS was in the children’s best interests, given the children’s behavioral needs, the mother’s inconsistent engagement with services and visits, housing and stability concerns, and exposure to a known substance user.

The Appellate Division affirmed a divorce judgment, modifying it to reduce the required life insurance the husband must carry from $750,000 to an amount equal to the remaining unpaid maintenance and allowing a declining term policy. The court upheld the equitable distribution, the sale of marital real estate, the maintenance award (including using the statutory income cap), and the attorney-fee award, rejecting claims of dissipation and insufficient property valuation. The cross-appeal succeeded only on the life-insurance security amount, which the court held should track the unpaid maintenance balance and decline as payments are made.

The Appellate Division dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal in a divorce action concerning the equitable distribution of marital property. The appeals arose from a September 19, 2024 Supreme Court order in Livingston County that, among other things, distributed the parties' marital assets. The appellate court issued a unanimous order dismissing both matters without costs and referenced a companion memorandum decision in a related appeal. No substantive reversal or modification of the lower court's distribution is contained in this short order.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department dismissed an appeal by defendant Bradford Morse challenging a Supreme Court order that, among other things, approved compensation for the Attorney for the Children in a matrimonial action. The court held the appeal could not proceed as of right because the challenged order did not decide a motion made on notice under CPLR 5701(a) and therefore is not immediately appealable. The panel declined to treat the notice of appeal as a permission-to-appeal application and denied discretionary review.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Family Court's order continuing custody of the child with Monroe County Department of Human Services. The mother had sought return of her child under Family Court Act § 1028 after a temporary removal. The court found petitioner proved that returning the child would present an imminent risk to the child's life or health because the mother suffers from untreated, severe mental health conditions, experiences frequent violent visions that sometimes include the child, lacks insight, does not take medication or seek therapy, and engages in unsafe behavior tied to those visions. The appellate court found a sound and substantial basis in the record for that determination.

The Appellate Division reversed Family Court's dismissal of a mother's petition to modify a consent visitation order and remanded for further proceedings. The mother sought to change a consent order that granted joint custody with primary placement to the father and limited the mother to supervised agency visitation once per month and additional supervised visits “as agreed.” The appellate court found the mother proved a change in circumstances because the agency placement was effectively unavailable and the father refused to allow the agreed additional visitation, and held the case must proceed to a full hearing on whether modification would be in the children's best interests.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Family Court order that granted the petitioner's written objection to a support magistrate's October 7, 2024 order in a Family Court child support proceeding. The appeal was taken by the respondent from the Family Court's November 27, 2024 order. The appellate court unanimously affirmed without costs, signaling it found no reversible error in the Family Court's disposition of the objection to the support magistrate's ruling.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed a Family Court order that dismissed the mother's custody petition and awarded joint custody after the mother failed to appear at a hearing. The court held that Family Court did not adequately ensure the mother knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to counsel before allowing her to proceed pro se. Because the right to counsel in child custody proceedings is fundamental, the court reinstated the mother's petition and remitted the case to Family Court for a new hearing to allow a proper waiver inquiry and further proceedings.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Family Court's March 17, 2025 order in a child-protective proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, which had found that respondent Thomas M. neglected the child Aleena M. The appeal challenged that neglect determination; the appellate court issued a short per curiam affirmance, adopting the reasoning set out in its separate memorandum in Matter of Akeem M. (Thomas M.). The court thus left undisturbed the Family Court's findings and disposition holding Thomas M. neglectful.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Family Court order that found Thomas M. neglected the child Ahmilia M. This appeal challenged the Family Court’s neglect determination in a proceeding brought by the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services under Family Court Act article 10. The appellate court relied on the same reasoning and memorandum it used in a companion case (Matter of Akeem M. (Thomas M.)) and concluded there were no reversible errors, so the Family Court’s ruling stands and costs were denied.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Family Court's order finding Heather H. neglected her child and placing her under the supervision of the Wayne County Department of Social Services. The appeal challenged the fact-finding that the mother's mental illness and illicit drug use caused neglect, but the appellate court held petitioner proved neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. The court relied on testimony and records showing the mother experienced delusions and paranoid behavior that placed the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition in imminent danger of impairment, and affirmed the dispositional supervision order.

The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed a mandamus petition by Zachary Brice Knox challenging a temporary restraining order that denied him possession and access to a child. After the petition was filed, the trial court modified and partially vacated the TRO and set a hearing for temporary orders. Because the complained-of provisions were vacated, the appellate court found Knox’s complaints moot and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction under the appellate rules.

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 Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Marquez Hutchinson from a case involving the Georgia Department of Human Services (ex rel. Jordan Hutchinson). After review, the Court denied the application for discretionary appeal on April 23, 2026. No opinion or substantive reasoning is included in the entry; the document is a short entry from the Clerk certifying denial of the application and recording the case and lower-court number.

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 reviewed a Family Court order that found a mother abused and neglected her child. The court unanimously vacated the abuse finding against the mother but affirmed the neglect finding. The court concluded the father, who lived with the family, inflicted excessive corporal punishment and sexual abuse, and the mother knew or should have known and failed to protect the child. The appellate court also upheld a neglect finding based on the mother's threat to the child with a knife, by conforming the pleadings to the proof, but found the evidence insufficient to support a finding that the mother committed abuse.