GEORGIA MOM VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERS CHILD, LOSES CUSTODY

Cheri Christensen

LA265 Unit 7

Family Law Legal Info Blogspot

Carr-MacArthur v.Carr, 764 S.E.2d 840 – Ga: Supreme Court 2014

The Georgia Supreme Court held in 2014 that a mother surrendering her child constituted a material change, and that that was sufficient to justify granting primary physical custody of the child to the father. Additionally, they held that the trial court erred when they modified the child support because they didn’t provide a written findings explaining or detailing why they made the changes.

Annie Carr-MacArthur and Christopher Carr were married in 2004 and divorced in 2009. Their only child was born in 2005. In the divorce settlement, both parents were granted joint custody, with primary physical custody granted to Mrs. Carr-MacArthur, who had just moved to Florida.  Mr. Carr, who was in the Air Force, remained in Georgia where he was based at the time. At the time of divorce, Mrs. Carr-MacArthur had some mental and health issues. Mr. Carr was aware, and he believed they were manageable.


In 2010, the Florida Department of Family and Child Services determined that Mrs. Carr-MacArthur’s home was unsafe – moldy food, trash on the floor, barely room to walk in the rooms, cat food on the floor and kitchen table, etc. – and Mrs. Carr-MacArthur surrendered the child to Mr. Carr. When she asked to have the child returned, Mr. Carr filed a petition for deprivation. (Deprivation means the child has been abandoned or insufficiently supervised or cared for, according to the definition found at Barton Center website: A Reference Manual For Department Of Family And Children Services Case Managers, 2004, retrieved at http://bartoncenter.net/work/childwelfare/Representation-and-the-Right-to-Counsel/DFCS_Manual1.html .) Mr. Carr later filed a petition for modification of custody, and three years later the trial court modified custody and gave Mr. Carr primary physical custody of the child, and made changes in child support.

Mrs. Carr-MacArthur attempted to argue that her various conditions and issues were unchanged, and that the court erred in giving custody to Mr. Carr because they could only do that if something had changed. But the supreme court ruled that her surrendering custody could constitute material change, and that court upheld the trial court’s ruling.

The supreme court, however, did find that the trial court erred when they made the changes in the child support because they did not “provide written findings detailing why they were granting the deviation."

Family Law Service Learning Case Summaries - Summer Term 2015 - Charlene O’Keefe

Family Law Service Learning Case Summaries - Summer Term 2015 

Charlene O’Keefe

LA265 Unit 7 Assignment

Link for opinion: https://casetext.com/case/blair-v-blair-44

Minnesota Appeals Court Upholds District in Modifying Parenting Time

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held in Blair v. Blair, A12-1154 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar 11, 2013) that the father could not alter the parenting time agreement originally agreed upon without using the endangerment issue. The original custody order was for joint physical custody, but the father was spending the same amount of time with his children as if he had only been granted basic visitation rights.

In asking for an increase in parenting time to a 50/50 arrangement, the father was denied based upon the effect it would have on the mother’s parenting time. Mother’s parenting time would have been decreased from upwards of 80% to only 50%. This time change also would have included a change in primary residence for the children who had spent the past 5 years visiting father on weekends and Wednesdays.

After the father relocated to be closer to the children he petitioned the court for a change in the parenting plan. Because the parenting plan used language that the agreement of the parents could supersede the “best interest of the child” theory, the father was denied his request for a change to the parenting plan.

The court held that visitation would not be changed and the only recourse for the father was to prove some type of endangerment existed should the current plan continue.

Labels for the post: child visitation, parenting time, parenting plan

Family Law Service Learning Case Summaries - Summer Term 2015 - Matt Mallard

Family Law Service Learning Case Summaries - Summer Term 2015 

Matt Mallard                       LA 265 Summer 2015                          Unit 7

Student Name: Matthew Mallard

Link for opinion:http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9731&courtid=1

Title: Colorado: Appeals Court Holds that Child has No “Home State” Under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

The Colorado Court of Appeals held in In re B.C.B., 2015 COA 42 (CO. Ct. App. 2015) that the child in question had no home state for the purposes of determining proper jurisdiction under UCCJEA, and that the child had a more significant connection to Massachusetts than Colorado for the purposes of determining jurisdiction in custody dispute.

Parties to the lawsuit were never married, but parented a child (BCB) in Idaho, but soon moved to the state of Colorado following the child’s birth. In August 2013, mother and BCB went to Massachusetts for extended visit with mother’s family. Mother testified at previous hearing that she had purchased round trip tickets and intended to return if she and father could work out the difficulties in their relationship, but while still in Massachusetts ultimately decided the relationship was over and not to return to Colorado with BCB.

Father, upon learning that mother and child would not be returning, petitioned Colorado district court for allocation of parental responsibilities. Mother responded, contesting the Colorado court’s jurisdiction, and filed a custody action in Massachusetts. Massachusetts court entered temporary order granting custody of BCB to mother.

Colorado and Massachusetts courts conferred, and Colorado court asserted temporary emergency jurisdiction, ordering mother to return to the state and set a hearing to determine custody. After the hearing, Colorado district court was able to determine that Idaho was actually BCB’s home state under the UCCJEA, but both parties expressed reluctance for Idaho to take jurisdiction and therefore either Colorado or Massachusetts could exercise jurisdiction under § 14-13-201(1)(d), C.R.S. 2014. District court of Colorado then declined jurisdiction on the basis that Colorado was not the most appropriate forum and determined that BCB had more significant connections with Massachusetts.

Also ruled by Colorado Court of Appeals was that the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA) did not supersede jurisdiction determination made under UCCJEA and that mother’s alleged unjustifiable conduct in not returning to Colorado with child did not provide Colorado court sufficient basis on which to assume jurisdiction.

Labels for the post: jurisdiction, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, custody

Family Law Service Learning Case Summaries - Summer Term 2015 - Marissa Johnston

Family Law Service Learning Case Summaries - Summer Term 2015 - Marissa Johnston

Family Law Case Summary

Student Name: Marissa Johnston

Link for opinion: Opinion obtained from WestlawNext is as follows:

JONES, Judge:

“Angel S. (Father) appeals the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to A.S. (Child) on grounds of abandonment and time in out-of-home care. As we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.”

Title: Arizona: Undocumented Deadbeat Father Fight For Rights

The Arizona Court of Appeals held in Angel v. Department of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 132 (2015). That a father who has not established a normal parent-child relationship with his two children, and has not seen them in two years constitutes abandonment, and parental rights should be terminated.

Unmarried natural parents had resided in California for about 6 months, before the mother began to travel back and forth between California and Arizona. Upon an event that warranted a call to DCS, the children were placed in the Grandparents care. DCS alleged Father had neglected and abandoned the children. Pursuant to mediation the father was required to complete parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, and take a “rule out” drug test in California.. Father however did not visit the children in Arizona, as he feared their strict laws on illegal immigrants, because he was an undocumented.

In March 2013, Child's guardian ad litem filed a motion to terminate Father and Mother's parental rights. The motion alleged two grounds for termination as to Father: (1) Father had abandoned Child; and (2) Child had been in an out-of-home placement for more than nine months, and Father had substantially neglected or refused to remedy the circumstances causing Child to be in the out-of-home placement.

In early 2014, Father testified he had desired to have the children live with him and that he had, secured housing and intended to remain in Arizona (despite previous immigration concerns.) However, the trial court determined that the GAL had proven two of the three statutory grounds for termination alleged in her severance motion—abandonment and out-of-home placement for a period of at least fifteen months—and found termination would be in Child's best interests. Accordingly, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to Child.

The Father appealed, but ultimately the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Labels for the post: child visitation, abandonment, undocumented parent, DCS