Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The superior court granted sole legal and primary physical custody of a child to her grandparents, after a trial at which the court found by clear and convincing evidence that leaving the child in her mother’s custody would be clearly detrimental to the child’s welfare. Nine months later, the mother moved to modify custody, attesting by affidavit that she had improved her life in a number of ways and had accomplished goals the court had set for her. She also argued that the court’s grant of custody following trial had been only temporary, and she was thus entitled to a biological-parent preference and the court could modify custody without proof of a substantial change in circumstances. The court denied her motion without a hearing, holding both that its custody decree was intended to be final and that the mother failed to show the substantial change in circumstances necessary to entitle her to an evidentiary hearing. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the superior court’s holdings, and therefore affirmed its denial of the mother’s modification motion without a hearing. View "Abby D. v. Sue Y." on Justia Law

The superior court modified a child custody decree, granting sole legal custody and primary physical custody to the child’s father and setting a visitation schedule. The mother picked the child up for summer visitation but did not share her travel plans with the father and did not answer the phone or otherwise respond when the father called for telephonic visitation with the child. After five days with no word from the mother or the child, the father filed a motion to show cause. The court ordered the mother to place the child on the phone at the scheduled telephonic visitation times, to keep the father informed of the child’s address and travel dates, and to give the child a telephone provided by the father to facilitate their telephonic visitation. The mother appealed, arguing that the custody decree did not give the father any telephonic visitation rights and that the court impermissibly modified the decree. She also argued that she did not receive adequate notice of the father’s motion. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court’s orders were within its inherent power to interpret and enforce the custody decree and that the mother received adequate notice of the father’s motion. View "del Rosario v. Clare" on Justia Law

A mother and father shared joint legal and physical custody of their daughter. The mother moved for sole legal and primary physical custody, alleging that a sustained lack of cooperation between the parents and other changes in their lives justified the modification of custody she requested. She moved in the alternative for a modification of the custody schedule. The superior court found there was no substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification of custody and awarded partial attorney’s fees to the father. The father appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed these decisions. The case was remanded nevertheless for the superior court to consider whether the mother’s proposed modification of the new custody schedule would have been in the daughter’s best interests. View "Collier v. Harris" on Justia Law

This appeal involved two petitions for long-term domestic violence protective orders. Olivia Lee-Magana prevailed both on a petition she brought against her ex-boyfriend Jacob Carpenter and on a petition he brought against her. She moved for attorney’s fees in both cases, but the trial court denied her motions at first and again on reconsideration. Lee-Magana appealed, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding her full attorney’s fees on both petitions : on hers because she was the prevailing petitioner in a domestic violence case for whom fees are allowed by statute, and on her ex-boyfriend’s because she was the prevailing party and his petition was vexatious. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of attorney’s fees for Lee-Magana's successful defense against her ex-boyfriend’s petition. As for the court’s denial of attorney’s fees to Lee-Magana as the prevailing petitioner, the Court concluded there was no adequate reason for denying fees and therefore reversed and remanded for an award of fees in an appropriate amount. View "Lee-Magana v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

A superior court ordered the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) to audit the child support and spousal support accounts of a divorced couple. The audits revealed that the agency had collected too much child support from the ex-wife and that the ex-husband owed her the overpayment as well as arrearages in spousal support. The ex-wife’s attorney filed an attorney’s lien on money in the ex-husband’s possession that the attorney claimed was owed to his client, then filed a separate action to enforce the lien. The ex-husband paid the money to CSSD, which turned it over to the ex-wife.The superior court granted summary judgment to the ex-husband on the attorney’s lien claim, concluding that the lien was invalid because the ex-husband was required to pay the money for the overpayment and the spousal support arrearages directly to CSSD. The attorney appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the attorney’s lien satisfied the requirements of the governing statute, AS 34.35.430(a)(3). Therefore the Court reversed the superior court’s summary judgment order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Law Offices of Steven D. Smith, P.C. v. Ceccarelli" on Justia Law

Jasmine was born in February 2009 to Clementine and Jermaine. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of the child after receiving reports that her mother’s conduct had placed her at risk of harm. OCS then investigated the child’s father, who lived out of state, and determined that the child would be safe in his care. At the temporary custody hearing, the superior court granted Jermaine's motion to dismiss the case and ordered the child released from OCS custody. Clementine appealed, arguing that the court should have granted her request for a continuance and held an evidentiary hearing on the father’s conduct and that the court erred by dismissing the petition without first making findings on the allegations it contained. The Supreme Court concluded that the mother had no right to an evidentiary hearing on the father’s conduct and that the superior court did not err by dismissing the petition when OCS declined to pursue it. View "Clementine F. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

A husband and wife separated after the husband was charged with sexually abusing their minor daughter. The husband eventually pleaded guilty to first degree indecent exposure. In the civil divorce suit, the superior court took judicial notice of the conviction, concluded that the husband’s sexual offense was the cause of his current financial woes and was therefore a form of economic misconduct, and divided the marital property 70-30 in the wife’s favor. The court also concluded that the wife had not wasted or otherwise misused marital funds she had withdrawn between separation and trial and accordingly declined to recapture those funds in the property division. The husband appeals, claiming the superior court should not have considered his criminal offense and by doing so demonstrated bias against him. The husband also contended the superior court abused its discretion by favoring the wife in the property division and that his due process rights were violated. Finding that the superior court erred by treating the wife's attorney's fees as marital expenses, failing to address the husband's request for fees, and by adjusting the property division to account for expenses the husband was separately obligated to pay.The Supreme Court remanded this case for further proceedings, but affirmed in all other respects. View "Jerry B. v. Sally B." on Justia Law

The parties to this appeal reached a settlement in their divorce, providing that the qualified marital portion of the husband’s pension would be distributed to the wife and the nonqualified portion would be distributed to the husband, subject to a provision for equitable reallocation if the values of those portions changed significantly. The settlement also described four firearms and ammunition that the husband would deliver to the wife. After the decree issued, the wife’s portion of the pension declined in value and the husband’s portion increased, so the wife filed motions attempting to obtain information about the reasons for this change in value and attempting to enforce the settlement agreement’s equitable reallocation provision to compensate for the changes. She also argued that the husband had not delivered the guns. The superior court ruled for the husband in all respects, and it awarded enhanced attorney’s fees against the wife. The wife appealed. After review, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the significant change in the relative values of the parties’ pension accounts triggered the verification and reallocation provision of their settlement agreement. Accordingly, the superior court’s denial of the wife’s motion for an equitable reallocation was reversed and the case remanded for an equitable reallocation according to the parties’ agreement. Because the husband was no longer the prevailing party, the Court also vacated the superior court’s award of attorney’s fees to the husband. The Court affirmed the superior court’s decision as to the issue over the guns. View "Herring v. Herring" on Justia Law

The superior court in this case divided the marital property, granted child custody and determined the child support obligation. On appeal of that order, the noncustodial, nonresident parent claimed the superior court lacked jurisdiction, the orders were substantively incorrect, and the court appeared to be biased against him. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the record contained no evidence of bias and that the court did not err in entering the marital property and child custody orders. But in calculating the father’s child support obligation, the court assumed that Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 imposed an income ceiling of $110,000 - $10,000 below the statutory level. Because the father’s income appeared to exceed $120,000, the Supreme Court deduced this assumption likely rendered the support order too low. Accordingly the Court remanded the support order for reconsideration. View "Sherrill v. Sherrill" on Justia Law

Timothy G. alleged he was abused by his stepfather repeatedly between 1997 and 2006. In 2006, Timothy reported the abuse to his mother. She took Timothy and his four siblings to a shelter, sought a protective order against the stepfather, and instituted divorce proceedings. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) then substantiated the report of harm, removed the children from their mother’s care, and placed them in foster care. In 2012, Timothy filed a complaint naming OCS and his stepfather as defendants. He sought compensatory damages from OCS, claiming that “[a]s a direct and proximate consequence of [OCS’s] breach of [its] dut[y] of care, [he] suffered physical injury, psychological and emotional injury and distress, psychological torment, torture and sexual abuse, pain and suffering, and resultant loss of earning capacity.” Timothy alleged that OCS had investigated at least ten reports of harm involving him and his siblings, but had taken no action. In response to OCS' motion to dismiss, Timothy G. asserted that the statute of limitations had been tolled on his claim because he was mentally incompetent following those years of abuse. The superior court held an evidentiary hearing on this issue and concluded that Timothy had failed to prove that he was incompetent. On appeal, Timothy argued that the superior court should have ruled in his favor if he produced more than a scintilla of evidence to support his assertion. But the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court applied the proper burden of proof and the proper test for competency, and that the court did not clearly err in finding that Timothy did not prove his incompetence. View "Timothy G. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law