Family Law From Around the Nation
By Rob McAngus1
1 Rob McAngus is a partner at Mueller Family Law, P.C. He is board-certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a Fellow of both the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and the International Academy of Family Law Specialists. Rob’s practice is devoted primarily to complex and high-conflict divorce matters. Rob serves on the Advisory Board for the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, the Texas Family Law Foundation Board and the Texas Academy of Family Law Specialists Board. Rob may be reached at rmcangus@muellerflg.com.
Marital Agreements: South Dakota upheld a premarital agreement pre-sented the day before the wedding and signed minutes before the cere-mony, where the wife was educated, financially independent, and admitted she was not deceived. The court treated her time pressure as largely self.imposed. It also rejected an unconscionability attack where she kept her businesses and home and could receive up to 20% of a roughly 26-million-dollar estate, about 5.2 million dollars. In re Estate of Webb, No. 31017, 2026 S.D. 2, 2026 WL 114238 (S.D. 2026). In a Vermont divorce, the trial court enforced a premarital agreement but refused to hear the hus-band’s claims about offsets for damage, expenses, and tax obligations, saying it lacked jurisdiction. The state supreme court reversed, holding that family courts do have jurisdiction to interpret and enforce premarital agreements, including as to separate property, where necessary to apply the agreement. The case was remanded for consideration of the husband’s defenses. Gade v. Gade, No. 25.AP.042, 2025 VT 68, 2025 WL 3730948 (Vt. 2025). Wyoming reiterated that premarital agreements rely on the marriage itself as consideration, but post.marital agreements require separate consideration. Mutual waivers of rights in each other’s premarital property and elective shares in their estates satisfy that requirement. The wife’s alleged failure to pay a nominal 100 dollars went to breach, not enforceability. Jones v. Young, 580 P.3d 1026 (Wyo. 2025).
Hague: The father sought the return of a child to Argentina under the Hague Convention, claiming it was the child’s habitual residence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the petition, emphasizing the parents’ nomadic lifestyle and that the extended stay in Argentina was “happenstance” caused by COVID.19 travel restrictions, not settled intent. Argentina, therefore, was not the child’s habitual resi-dence. Alzu v. Huff, 165 F.4th 1073 (8th Cir., Jan. 23, 2026). After granting a Hague Convention petition ordering the return of children to Venezuela and rejecting defenses including consent/acquiescence, “settled child,” mature.child, and grave risk, the district court stayed the return date briefly when the FAA temporarily banned U.S. flights over Venezuela following U.S. military strikes. Once the ban was lifted, Respondent changed counsel and filed a Rule 59/60 “emergency” motion to alter or amend, attaching new affidavits and a psychological report to argue that prior counsel mishandled the grave.risk and ma-ture.child defenses. The court denied reconsideration, holding that dissatisfaction with counsel’s strategic concessions is not “mistake” or “excusable neglect” under Rule 60(b)(1), and that respondent still had
not shown a likelihood of success on the merits to justify staying the return order. Jardim v. Paez, Case No. 25-cv-24087, 2026 WL 19100 (S.D. Fla. 2026).
Child Custody: In Wyoming, the father argued that because both parents were fit, a decree giving him less than half parenting time violated his fundamental right to parent. The Wyoming Supreme Court re-jected any constitutional guarantee of equal physical possession, upholding the trial court’s best.interest analysis. It cited authority from other states approving broad trial.court discretion under “best interest” standards. Smith v. Smith, 580 P.3d 507 (Wyo. 2025). In Georgia, a former partner obtained equitable caregiver status and primary physical custody over the mother’s child after the trial court put the burden on the mother to show harm from granting that status. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, clarifying that the putative equitable caregiver bears the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child will suffer physical or long.term emotional harm if the petition is denied. Misallocating that burden was reversible error. Venticinque v. Lair, 924 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. 2025). A Pennsylvania trial court awarded a paternal grandfather shared legal and partial physical custody and ordered the mother to undergo a mental.health evaluation, while professing disinterest in the results. The Superior Court held that the grandfather lacked standing under the governing statute and that there was no basis for the mental.health exam. The opinion also catalogued the trial judge’s prejudicial conduct toward the mother. Reed v. Reed, No. 1601 EDA 2025, 2025 WL 3772148 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
Child Support: In another Wyoming case, after a change of custody, the father’s support was suspended and later reinstated retroactively only to a date eight months after the mother regained possession. Mother did not appeal that reinstatement order, then later sought back support for the gap period and lost. The Wyoming Supreme Court held that res judicata barred her from revisiting retroactivity because she failed to appeal the earlier order. Davis v. Panasuk, No. 582 P.3d 905 (Wyo. 2026). In a North Dakota case, the father moved from a 60–80 hour.per.week job earning over $115,000 to lower.paying work so he could spend more time with his children and manage school transportation. The trial court based child support on his current income and found the job changes were driven by parenting responsibilities, not avoidance of support. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting imputation. Kolstad v. Claussen, 29 N.W.3d 613 (N.D. 2025). In Maine, the parents originally stipulated to equal residence and zero child support from father; later, mother sought support and father sought an adjustment due to a new child. The trial court ordered support but denied an adjustment, reasoning that only a “nonresidential parent” qualifies for that statutory credit. The Maine high court held that when parents share substantially equal care, neither is the “primary care provider,” and either may qualify for an adjustment if supporting another child. Waterman v. Wheeler, 347 A.3d 1028 (Me. 2025).
Property Division: In a California divorce, the husband moved to discard frozen embryos while the wife sought control under the parties’ IVF agreement. The California Court of Appeal enforced the agreement, holding that an unambiguous IVF contract controls disposition of embryos at divorce and that such ad-vance directives are not contrary to public policy. The court also found the husband forfeited his consti-tutional privacy argument. Pham v. Superior Court of Orange County, 117 Cal. App. 5th 115, (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). In a federal suit, a plan participant argued the administrator miscalculated his ERISA annuity by treating the cost of a survivor annuity as a reduction to the overall benefit, despite a QDRO authorizing allocation of that cost to the ex.spouse’s share. The Fourth Circuit held that the QDRO merely authorized, but did not require, shifting the entire cost to the alternate payee and that the administrator’s interpretation of the plan and QDRO was reasonable. No abuse of discretion was found. Gasper v. EIDP, Inc., 161 F.4th 232 (4th Cir. 2025). After trial in Iowa, the husband received roughly $7.49 million in assets, includ-ing the family business, and owed the wife a $3.03 million equalization payment. The wife nonethelesssought $13,500 per month in traditional spousal support. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the denial ofsupport, holding that “need” is measured against the parties’ pre.divorce lifestyle and that her sizeableproperty award was sufficient to maintain that standard. In re Marriage of Owen and Brinker, 29 N.W.3d6 (Iowa 2025)
Enforcement: In Washington, the ex.wife tried to hold her ex.husband in contempt for failing to pay a truck debt owed to her mother, which the decree required him to pay. The Washington court held con-tempt remedies are reserved for support obligations (maintenance or child support), not ordinary debts owed to third.party creditors. Because the obligation ran to the mother.in.law, not to the ex.wife as
support, contempt was unavailable; the creditor could sue directly. In re Marriage of Kelley, No. 582 P.3d 357 (Wash. Ct. App. 2026). In a post.judgment enforcement, the Michigan Court of Appeals interpreted a divorce settlement requiring husband to pay up to $160,000 of wife’s then.existing attorney and expert fee obligations as an out.of.pocket cap, not a cap reduced by any discounts he negotiated. The judgment of divorce was reserved to the trial court, not an arbitrator, the power to interpret and enforce the merged settlement, so the court properly refused to compel arbitration of this enforcement issue. The court also upheld a $2,000 attorney’s fee award to wife under Michigan domestic.relations rules because husband’s noncompliance with the fee.payment provision forced her to pursue enforcement. Varchetti v. Varchetti, 2026 WL 60117 (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
You Don’t See This Every Day: A Delaware groom’s father sought a declaration that his son’s Valen-tine’s Day, dockside wedding was invalid because it lacked two qualified witnesses required by statute. The Delaware Supreme Court treated the missing second witness as a minor defect that did not invalidate a marriage entered into with intent to comply with the law. The court stressed a strong policy favoring upholding marriages despite technical solemnization irregularities. LaFon v. Felmlee, No. 217,2025, 2026 WL 205261 (Del. 2026). A Maryland Department of Defense employee sued her real.estate.agent boy-friend for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment after he induced her—via promises of exclusivity, shared home ownership, and waived commission—to buy a house where he collected the commission and never moved in, all while in overlapping relationships. The trial court tossed her claims as barred by Maryland’s anti.heart.balm statute, which abolishes breach.of.promise.to.marry suits. The appellate court reversed, holding that her claims arose from a commercial real.estate transaction and fiduciary relationship, not a broken promise to marry, and that she stated a viable unjust enrichment claim based on the commission and related benefits. Wallace v. Hawk, 348 A.3d 627 (Md. 2025). New Mexico used a certified question in an alienation.of.affections suit to decide whether the tort should continue to exist. The court abolished the tort, citing its patriarchal origins, the fact that a spouse’s affection is not “property,” and tension with no.fault divorce policy. The opinion overruled earlier precedent and rejected inquiries into “what went wrong” in a marriage. Butterworth v. Jackson, No. S.1.SC.40623, 2026 WL 193941 (N.M. 2026).
