The Court of Appeals in Wilkins v. Ferguson reversed the trial court’s order granting the biological father unsupervised visits and further expounded on modification of visitation orders when there is evidence of intrafamily offenses. After filing for absolute divorce, and seeking custody award from the court, the trial court granted joint legal custody with primary physical custody with the mother, Ms. Wilkins.  The trial court also found compelling evidence that husband had committed, and wife had suffered substantial physical, verbal and psychological abuse with the pattern of abuse existed throughout the marriage. The father-child visitation was later suspended due to
Read More

The Court of Appeals in the IN RE PETITION OF A.T.J. AND L.D.J., decided on March 18, 2021, further clarified the meaning of “grasping parental opportunity interest” in context of adoption petitions. At trial, the biological father’s rights were terminated during adoption litigation for the minor child with the father objecting to the proceeding. The biological father had primarily argued in the case that the trial court did not properly apply a parental presumption: that is, it terminated his parental rights without first making a finding of parental unfitness. Prior caselaw had established that the presumption in favor of a
Read More

The Court of Appeals in Boyd v. Boyd, for the first time analyzed and addressed whether an inchoate personal injury claim during the marriage is considered a marital property or a sole and separate property. Shortly before divorce was finalized, the wife had incurred an accident giving rise to a personal injury claim which was not yet initiated or resolved. The trial court there had held that an inchoate personal injury claim was not a marital asset because there was: No way of valuing it, and that Pain and suffering from the accident were “intensely personal,” and any recovery for
Read More

The DC Court of Appeals in ANGULO v. GOCHNAUER, deconstructed a divorce property settlement agreement as it related to the Foreign Service Act.    Parties in advance of divorce, had reached a property settlement agreement that in general terms released one another from any future property claims with no specific mention of the statutory provisions of the Foreign Service Act. Specifically, parties had incorporated in a general release clause of the property settlement agreement that they desired: to settle all rights, interests and obligations between them and to obtain a full, complete and final property settlement and agreement, including a settlement
Read More

The Court of Appeals in Cave v. Scheulov, addressed and defined parameters in awarding attorney’s fees in Civil Protection Order (CPO) cases. Specifically, Cave had filed a Petition for a CPO against her husband of thirteen years alleging physical abuse and assault, which was granted by the court. Her claim for legal fees however was denied as the trial court had required that she first prove that the litigation was oppressive, burdensome or in bath faith as a condition precedent to awarding legal fees or before considering all other elements and factors. Traditionally and particularly in divorce cases, the court has
Read More

The DC Court of Appeals in K.H. v. R.H., considered application of a complex legal standard while reconciling a divorce, neglect as well as third party custody filing. Mr. H. and Mrs. H. were divorced and under the terms of their divorce decree, Mrs. H. was granted custody of their minor children.   Subsequent to the divorce, and while Mrs. H. was involved in another relationship, a neglect proceeding was brought against her and she was adjudicated neglectful.  Mr. H. thereafter initiated a third-party custody filing to gain custody of the child who was deemed neglected.  It is noteworthy that Mr.
Read More

The Court of Appeals in Murphy v. Murphy, defined what constitutes an equitable distributing of property that is changing in value. The appellant had argued that the trial court had not property and timely assessed the value of the martial home before issuing a distribution order and during a divorce proceeding, namely that: A steep decline in value of the marital property before the court’s order of disposition prevented the distribution from being “equitable, just, and reasonable” as required by statute, The trial court erred in making its property distribution by failing to credit appellant for his mortgage payments, and
Read More