8 results for 'cat:"Family Law" AND cat:"Experts"'.
J. Stevenson finds the trial court properly allowed the wife to present expert testimony about the husband's earning capabilities. His specialized job in the private energy sector involved skills and work outside the scope of understanding for a layperson, while the husband was also able to fully cross-examine the expert witness. However, because the court failed to include spousal support as part of the wife's income during its calculation of child support, the case must be remanded to allow for a proper calculation. Reversed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Stevenson, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1456, Categories: Evidence, family Law, experts
[Consolidated.] J. Perry finds that the trial court properly ordered the full interdiction of a fifty-four-year-old individual who has intellectual and developmental disabilities. The testimony of the medical expert and other evidence supports the finding that the individual is not able to "make reasoned decisions regarding the care of his person and property." Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Perry, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: CW-23-213, Categories: Evidence, family Law, experts
Per curiam, the Texas Supreme Court finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled against a husband in a divorce case when it determined that investment accounts belonging to him were not separate property. Because an expert testifying on the accounts was unable to see statements from the following four months, the court of appeals held that the husband failed to show evidence that the accounts were separate property. While the expert was unable to view the specific account statements, they were still admitted into evidence and still part of the record. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: 22-0565, Categories: Evidence, family Law, experts
J. Lawrence-Berrey finds that the lower court improperly struck the opinion of an expert and former judge in a dispute between the Department of Children, Youth, and Families and the estate of a boy whose injuries were the subject of investigation over potential child abuse. The lower court seemed to strike the testimony on the idea that a jury would attach too much weight to the opinion of a former judge, but the testimony was not likely to "arouse an emotional response from jurors," given that it was largely centered around what a judge would have done in regards to the child being removed from his mother's care. Reversed.
Court: Washington Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lawrence-Berrey, Filed On: January 30, 2024, Case #: 39483-2-III, Categories: family Law, experts
J. Hodgens finds that the lower court improperly terminated the mother's parental rights. Because the child is an enrolled member of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, the Indian Child Welfare Act required the Department of Children and Families to present expert testimony showing that custody of the parent is likely to result in emotional or physical damage to the child. The department's expert did not have the proper experience or training to testify as to the child's likelihood of harm. Vacated.e
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hodgens, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 22-P-568, Categories: family Law, Native Americans, experts
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Thomson finds the lower court improperly allowed the state's expert witness to testify about the cultural differences between the child's current family and the Native American tribe, as well as the possible permanent damage resulting from placement with her abusive parents. The witness failed to establish adequate credentials and experience regarding permanent damage. However, because the state made a good faith effort to provide expert testimony in both categories, the case will be remanded to allow for a new hearing with proper witnesses. Reversed in part.
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court, Judge: Thomson, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: S-1-SC-39139, Categories: family Law, Native Americans, experts
J. Hixson finds the circuit court properly found that the postnuptial agreement, executed after the couple's second divorce, was valid and enforceable, and also properly divided the couple's property. Both parties retained experts who gave conflicting testimony. After having the benefit of hearing that testimony and being able to review the voluminous financial records, the circuit court agreed with the husband's expert. Arkansas appellate courts give due deference to the circuit court’s superior position to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given testimony. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hixson , Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: CV-20-752, Categories: family Law, Property, experts