Court Filings

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 Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Robyn J. Monroe seeking review in case A26D0437 (LC No. 25A07465) against Rodney E. Monroe. After consideration, the court denied the application for discretionary appeal on April 20, 2026. The order is brief and does not state reasons; it is an administrative disposition declining to grant review by the appellate court.

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.

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 Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed a final divorce decree after the wife filed for annulment and the husband counterclaimed for divorce. The court reversed the trial court only to the extent it awarded $3,000 in attorney’s fees to the husband, and affirmed the remainder of the decree. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that the wife engaged in financial misconduct — transferring and spending the husband’s premarital funds during the parties’ cohabitation — and approved a $58,827.40 distributive award to compensate the husband and an unequal allocation of marital debts reflecting the wife’s misconduct.

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 reversed part of a trial court order in a parenting-plan relocation case because the trial court granted permanent relocation relief after a hearing that had been noticed only for temporary relief. The appellant had requested both temporary and permanent relief, but the notice for the July 17, 2024 hearing specified only temporary relief. The appellate court held that granting permanent relief without proper notice violated due process. The court affirmed the temporary relief, reversed the permanent-relief portion, and remanded for a proper final hearing on permanent relocation.

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 Second Court of Appeals for Texas dismissed Father's accelerated appeal from a January 6, 2026 final order in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship because Father failed to file his appellate brief by the March 3, 2026 deadline and did not respond to the court's March 16, 2026 notice. The court gave Father until March 26, 2026 to file a brief and a motion explaining the delay but received no response. Citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allowing dismissal for want of prosecution, the court dismissed the appeal on April 16, 2026.

The court affirmed a district court’s post-answer default order in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship, except it removed the portion changing the child’s last name. The mother sought sole managing conservatorship and child support; the father filed an answer but did not appear at trial. The trial court granted sole managing conservatorship and child support and ordered a name change. On appeal the father argued lack of notice, due process violations, recusal error, venue and evidentiary complaints. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief, but the name change was unauthorized because no petition sought it, so that part was deleted and the order was otherwise affirmed.

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 Court of Appeals for the Seventh District conditionally granted mandamus relief to Heather Zermeno, who asked the court to vacate a temporary order appointing her and her husband joint managing conservators in their divorce case. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by appointing joint managing conservators despite credible evidence that the father committed family violence within two years of the divorce filing, which the Family Code prohibits for joint conservatorship. The appellate court ordered the trial judge to vacate the temporary joint-managing-conservator order and review conservatorship consistent with the statute.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted an emergency motion under Court of Appeals Rule 40(b) to extend the time for filing an application for discretionary appeal. The superior court had denied the appellant's motion for new trial in a divorce case on March 17, 2026. The appellant's counsel requested additional time to file the discretionary-appeal application, and the Court of Appeals allowed the extension until May 18, 2026. The order only addresses the filing deadline extension and does not decide the merits of the underlying divorce or new-trial denial.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal in the matter titled In re L. D. et al., Children (Mother) and on April 16, 2026 issued an order denying the application. The order is a short administrative disposition: the court declined to exercise discretionary review and did not reach the merits of the underlying juvenile or parental-rights proceedings. No opinion or reasoning is provided in the order beyond the denial itself.

The Court of Appeals dismissed two direct appeals challenging a trial court’s award of $5,005 in attorney fees and a contempt finding in a domestic relations case because the appellants did not follow the required discretionary-review procedure. The trial court had apportioned the fee award between the father (Randy Harling, Jr.) and his former counsel (Bataski Bailey). The Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because Georgia law requires an application for discretionary review to appeal orders in domestic relations matters and awards under OCGA § 9-15-14. Noncompliance with that procedure is jurisdictional, so the appeals were dismissed on April 16, 2026.

The First Department dismissed as moot an appeal by a father challenging a Supreme Court Bronx County temporary custody order that gave physical custody to the mother and visitation to the father. The court granted the father's appellate counsel's motion to withdraw under Anders v. California after concluding there were no nonfrivolous issues to raise. The panel held the temporary visitation order was not an appealable final disposition under the Family Court Act and, in any event, the temporary order expired and has been superseded by later custody and visitation orders that were not appealed, rendering this appeal moot.

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 Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed part of a trial court order in a parenting-plan modification case. Ellen-Rose Fitzgerald sought temporary and permanent relief to relocate with her children; the hearing was noticed only for temporary relief. The trial court nonetheless entered an order granting permanent relief. The appellate court held that granting relief beyond the noticed subject violated due process, affirmed the portion granting temporary relief, reversed the portion granting permanent relief, and remanded for a properly noticed final hearing on permanency.