Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A mother ("Theresa L.") appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two youngest children. The children, teenagers at the time of the termination hearing, testified that they did not want her rights to be terminated. The trial court decided that the children were in need of aid because of mental injury and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The mother argued on appeal that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) did not meet its burden of proving mental injury and that the trial court clearly erred in deciding that termination was in the children’s best interests because of their ages, their stated wishes, and their lack of a permanent placement. The Supreme Court issued an order reversing the trial court’s decision because OCS presented insufficient evidence that the children suffered a mental injury. This opinion explained the Court's reasoning. View "Theresa L., v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Soc. Svcs." on Justia Law

A grandparent petitioned for restriction-free visitation with his grandchildren after they moved out of state. The parents conceded that visitation with the grandparent was in the children’s best interests, but opposed court-ordered visitation, stating that they had never denied reasonable visitation and would continue to allow visitation with some restrictions. Without finding any of the parents’ visitation restrictions unreasonable or any history of denying reasonable visitation, the superior court entered an order requiring “reasonable” visitation. The parents appealed, arguing that the order violated their constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of their children. Immediately after oral argument the Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s visitation order. The Court explained the basis for that order. Because the superior court’s findings precluded the possibility that a constitutional visitation order could be entered based on the record in this case, the Court also dismissed the grandfather’s visitation petition in its entirety. View "Ross v. Bauman" on Justia Law

A grandparent petitioned for restriction-free visitation with his grandchildren after they moved out of state. The parents conceded that visitation with the grandparent was in the children’s best interests, but opposed court-ordered visitation, stating that they had never denied reasonable visitation and would continue to allow visitation with some restrictions. Without finding any of the parents’ visitation restrictions unreasonable or any history of denying reasonable visitation, the superior court entered an order requiring “reasonable” visitation. The parents appealed, arguing that the order violated their constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of their children. Immediately after oral argument the Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s visitation order. The Court explained the basis for that order. Because the superior court’s findings precluded the possibility that a constitutional visitation order could be entered based on the record in this case, the Court also dismissed the grandfather’s visitation petition in its entirety. View "Ross v. Bauman" on Justia Law

Sarah D. and John D. separated shortly after their daughter turned three. Each claimed that the other was abusive, and obtained a short-term domestic violence protective order after they separated. The parties later stipulated to a mutual no-contact order but violated it by continuing a sporadic romantic relationship. Sarah requested interim attorney’s fees. After the superior court denied her request, Sarah consented to her lawyer’s withdrawal. Sarah and John then agreed to a property settlement. Before litigating custody Sarah again requested interim attorney’s fees and twice filed continuance motions requesting time to obtain counsel. Her motions were denied, and she appeared pro se throughout a four-day custody trial. John’s parents helped pay for his lawyer, and he was represented at all times. Over Sarah’s objections, John’s father was allowed to intervene as a party for visitation purposes. The trial court awarded shared physical and sole legal custody to John and gave John’s father unspecified visitation during John’s custodial time. Sarah appealed the court’s denials of her requests for an interim fee award, trial continuances, and to compel a witness's attendance at trial. She also appealed the court’s orders granting the grandfather intervention and visitation and the court’s domestic violence finding and custody decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the order granting the grandfather visitation and otherwise affirmed all but the custody decision, remanding for more detailed findings and conclusions on domestic violence issues. View "Sarah D. v. John D." on Justia Law

When Brandy and Jeremy Moore divorced in 2014, the superior court granted sole legal and primary physical custody of their ten-year-old daughter to Brandy, and awarded Jeremy unrestricted visitation, including visitation to foreign countries. Jeremy proposed taking the child to Micronesia during his visitation period because he became involved with a Micronesian woman he met while he was stationed there with the Army. Brandy asked the superior court to limit Jeremy’s international visitation to countries that have ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The superior court denied Brandy’s motion, and she appealed, arguing that the superior court abused its discretion by allowing unrestricted international visitation. She worried that if Jeremy absconded with the child to a non-signatory country, the child will then be beyond the jurisdiction of the Alaska court to enforce the custody order. But because the superior court made an express finding that Jeremy’s conduct raised no concerns about the safety and return of the child, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Moore v. Moore" on Justia Law

Husband appealed a superior court decision dividing the marital property. He raises two issues with regard to his wife’s retirement health insurance benefits: (1) that the superior court erred in determining the marital portion of those benefits; and (2) that the superior court erred in the rate it selected for valuing those benefits. In addition, Husband challenged the superior court’s award to the wife of a larger share of the marital property, which the court justified on grounds that the wife would have primary care of the couple’s child, and Husband was receiving two income-producing businesses created during the marriage. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error with regard to the health insurance benefits. However, the Court found it was an abuse of discretion to rely on the stated two justifications for an unequal division of the marital property, and remanded for the superior court’s further consideration of the equitable division. Lastly, the Court affirmed the superior court’s valuation of the husband’s 2010 income tax liability, because its finding was supported by the estimates given at trial and it was not required to revise the finding based on the husband’s later submission of his actual return. View "Engstrom v. Engstrom" on Justia Law

The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took custody of two young girls because of their parents’ substance abuse and neglect. OCS took custody of the parents’ son shortly after his birth for the same reasons. The trial court terminated the parents’ rights to all three children, who were Indian children as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The parents appealed, arguing that the trial court violated due process when it entered an adjudication and disposition order on the basis of OCS’s offer of proof before the parents had received proper notice or been appointed counsel. They also argued that the trial court erred at the termination trial when it found that: (1) the children were in need of aid; (2) the parents failed to timely remedy the conduct or conditions that placed the children at risk of harm; (3) OCS’s expert witnesses qualified as experts for purposes of ICWA; (4) the parents’ continued custody of the children would likely result in serious emotional or physical harm to the children; and (5) termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the lack of proper notice at the adjudication and disposition stage did not affect the outcome of this proceeding (and therefore did not deprive the parents of due process) and that the trial court’s decision at the termination stage was supported by the evidence. View "Payton S. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

In this case, the superior court awarded the parents joint physical custody of their daughter, finding that although the father had committed domestic violence, it was “not of a degree or frequency” to trigger the presumption found in Alaska Statute 25.24.150(g) (a rebuttable presumption that a parent with a "history of perpetrating domestic violence" not be awarded sole or joint physical custody of a child). The Supreme Court, on review of this case, found that the trial court’s factual findings were ambiguous as to whether the father committed more than one act of domestic violence. The Court therefore remanded this case for further findings on this issue. View "Faye H. v. James B." on Justia Law

A married couple moved from Fairbanks to Mississippi to “start a new life” and work on their marriage. After living in Mississippi for a few months the husband filed for divorce, and a Mississippi court entered a temporary child custody order awarding the couple joint physical custody of their child. A few months later the mother fled to Alaska with the child and filed for divorce in Alaska Superior. The Alaska court dismissed the mother’s action, concluding that Mississippi had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The mother appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed: Mississippi had jurisdiction when it issued its temporary child custody order because (1) Alaska did not have home state or recent home state jurisdiction when the father filed his suit in Mississippi, and (2) the child had a significant connection to Mississippi and substantial evidence was available there. View "Norris v. Norris" on Justia Law

A husband and wife obtained a marriage dissolution that included a provision to split the “profits . . . after the cost of fuel and can[ne]ry dues” from their jointly owned commercial fishing boat. The parties disputed the meaning of the term “profits.” Each party contended that the other owed a large sum of money pursuant to the agreement. The superior court approved a standing master’s recommendation that interpreted “profits” to mean “payment from the cannery, less deductions for fuel, dues and other advancements.” Because the superior court’s findings regarding the parties’ reasonable expectations at the time of the dissolution agreement were not clearly erroneous, and because the superior court’s interpretation of the provision accurately reflects those expectations, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mahan v. Mahan" on Justia Law