Also known as: family law · domestic relations
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The body of state and federal law that regulates domestic relations among family members. It encompasses rules on marriage formation and dissolution, parental rights and responsibilities, child custody and support, and related financial obligations.
Farah Fox hired Fernando Farrell to handle her divorce from her spouse. The agreement provided that Farrell would receive twenty percent of any property settlement obtained. The court refused to enforce the fee provision because the payment depended on the amount recovered in the domestic relations proceeding.
Flora Ford and Francois Fortier disagreed over legal custody and visitation after their separation. They submitted the matter to an arbitrator under a written agreement. The arbitrator resolved the child-related issues by applying state family law standards to determine parenting time.
Fatou Fall petitioned for child support modification after her former spouse relocated. The parties had agreed to arbitrate all contested issues arising under state domestic relations statutes. The arbitrator applied state choice-of-law rules to calculate the new support obligation.
Francesca Fowler sought court-ordered visitation with her grandchildren after their mother limited contact. The trial court weighed the mother's fundamental parental rights against the children's best interests before denying the petition.
Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel never married but had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. Jenifer and Gary Troxel are Brad's parents and the paternal grandparents of the children. After Granville and Brad separated in 1991, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought Isabelle and Natalie to their home for weekend visitation. Brad Troxel committed suicide in May 1993. The Troxels continued to see the children on a regular basis after his death. In October 1993 Granville informed the Troxels that she wished to limit their visitation to one short visit per month. In December 1993 the Troxels filed a petition in Washington Superior Court for Skagit County under Rev. Code Wash. § 26.10.160(3) seeking visitation rights. The statute provides that any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time. The court may order visitation when it may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances. The Troxels requested two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks each summer. Granville proposed one day of visitation per month with no overnight stay. In 1995 the Superior Court ordered visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both grandparents' birthdays. Granville appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that nonparents lack standing to seek visitation under the statute unless a custody action is pending. The Washington Supreme Court granted review, held that the Troxels had standing, but affirmed on the ground that the statute unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment.
A minor was accused of theft in a family court proceeding. The court required proof beyond a reasonable doubt before adjudicating the child delinquent and imposing supervision.
During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing conducted pursuant to section 742 of the New York Family Court Act, a judge in New York Family Court found that the twelve-year-old appellant had entered a locker and stolen one hundred twelve dollars from a woman's pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of larceny. The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but relied on section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which provides that any determination at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing that a juvenile did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of eighteen months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his eighteenth birthday, six years in appellant's case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of section 744(b). The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseA former spouse filed a federal diversity action seeking a new custody decree and alimony modification after moving across state lines. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over core domestic relations matters.
In September 1989 Carol Ankenbrandt, a citizen of Missouri, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of her daughters L. R. and S. R. against Jon A. Richards and Debra Kesler, both citizens of Louisiana. The complaint alleged that Richards, the divorced father of the children, and Kesler, his female companion, had committed acts of sexual and physical abuse against the daughters and sought monetary damages. Federal jurisdiction rested solely on the diversity-of-citizenship provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. One month earlier, on August 9, 1989, a juvenile court in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, had entered a judgment under state child-protection statutes that permanently terminated Richards' parental rights on account of the alleged abuse and permanently enjoined him from any contact with the children. On December 10, 1990, the District Court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss. The court cited In re Burrus for the proposition that the whole subject of domestic relations belongs to the laws of the States and invoked the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction. It also relied on the abstention principles of Younger v. Harris to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to three questions concerning the existence and scope of any domestic relations exception and the propriety of Younger abstention in the case.
A lawyer may not charge or collect a fee contingent on obtaining a divorce or on the amount of alimony, support, or a property settlement. The prohibition prevents the lawyer's financial interest from influencing advice on sensitive family decisions.
A child-related dispute includes contested issues of legal or physical custody, parenting time, visitation, and financial support for a child. Such matters fall within the definition of a family law dispute that may be submitted to arbitration under the act.
…for First Principles, Inc., by Ronald D. Ray; for Liberty Counsel by Mathew D. Staver and Rena M. Lindevaldsen; for the Pro Family Law Center et al. by Richard D. Ackerman and Gary G. Kreep; for Public Advocate of the United States et al. by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson; for the Texas Eagle Forum et al. by Teresa…
…reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens: family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody), for example. Under the theories that the Government presents in support of § 922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal…
…[¶] To the extent surrogacy continues to be practical, it can be governed by the legal framework already established in the family law area." (Governor's veto message to Sen. on Sen. Bill No. 937 (Sept. 26, 1992) Sen. Daily File (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) p. 68.) Given this less than ringing endorsement of surrogate parenting,…
…divesting the accused of the privilege to bar adverse spousal testimony has special relevance because the laws of marriage and domestic relations are concerns traditionally reserved to the states. See Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975). Scholarly criticism of the Hawkins rule has also continued…
…seeks to eliminate. Ingersoll-Band, swpm , at 142. Second, respondents emphasize that the Washington statute involves both family law and probate law, areas of traditional state regulation. There is indeed a presumption against pre-emption in areas of traditional state regulation such as
A family law dispute arises whenever parties contest an issue governed by the state's domestic relations statutes. The definition covers matters such as custody, support, and property division that the parties have agreed to arbitrate.
Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children. A state statute that automatically overrides a fit parent's decision on visitation without according deference to that decision violates due process.
The Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent. This standard protects the same liberty interests at stake in adult criminal prosecutions.
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue or modify divorce, alimony, or child custody decrees. The exception does not prevent enforcement of existing state decrees or adjudication of related tort claims between family members.