Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two parents disputed the legal custody and visitation rights for their daughter; the mother resided in Alaska and the father resided on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana. The superior court awarded sole legal custody to the mother because it concluded that the parties could not communicate effectively to co-parent their daughter. The court ordered unsupervised visitation between the father and the daughter in Alaska, but prohibited visitation on the reservation until the daughter turned eight. The father appealed. Although the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it decided legal custody, the Supreme Court concluded the superior court failed to fully justify its decision when creating its restrictive visitation schedule and allocating visitation expenses. Consequently the Supreme Court remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Red Elk v. McBride" on Justia Law

A mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to three of her children. She argued that the trial court erred in: (1) finding that the children were children in need of aid because of the mother’s mental illness, a statutory basis for termination not alleged in the petition; (2) finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) made the necessary efforts towards reunification; and (3) allowing two witnesses to testify as experts. In affirming the trial court’s order, the Alaska Supreme Court held: (1) the trial court’s finding that the children were children in need of aid was supported by alternative grounds that are not challenged on appeal; (2) its finding that OCS made the required efforts to reunify the family was supported by the evidence; and (3) its acceptance of the challenged expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion. View "Sylvia L. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

Shirley M. was the mother of Abigail, born in April 2010. For many years violence, prostitution, reported substance abuse, and other crimes consumed Shirley’s life. Abigail was Shirley’s fifth child: Haily was born in 2002, Daisy was born in 2003, Penny was born in 2005, and Andrew was born in 2008. In March 2004 OCS received a high priority report that the father of Shirley’s older children was abusing Haily. OCS removed the children but later returned them with in-home services and custody supervision. OCS made a referral for in-home services, including parenting training for both parents. Although the family participated in the services, OCS continued to have concerns. In June 2005 OCS considered removing the children from the home again after receiving another report that the father was abusing Haily. Shortly after Penny was born OCS petitioned to place the three children under supervision. Not long after that, Penny died due to asphyxiation. It was suspected that Shirley rolled over onto Penny when the family was sleeping in a tent in the yard at Rae’s residence. According to the social worker who saw Haily and Daisy the day they were removed from Shirley’s care, the children had low muscle tone and few speech skills. The social worker also reported that the children were generally unruly, screaming and trying to break things, and hitting and pinching each other. Shirley ultimately lost her parental rights as to her remaining children, and she appealed termination of those right, in this case, as to Abigail, on the grounds that the trial court erred in finding that: (1) Shirley failed to remedy the conduct that put Abigail at risk of harm; (2) the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) made reasonable efforts to provide services to reunify the family; (3) termination was in Abigail’s best interests; and (4) OCS did not abuse its discretion in placing Abigail with her foster parents and not her great-grandmother, Rae. Finding no reason to disturb the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Shirley M. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Svcs." on Justia Law

Sometime in early 2007, "Connie" approached Holly and William Ebert, a married couple she knew from church, about adopting her child. Connie wanted the Eberts to adopt her child because she thought they would be loving parents and because they shared her religious values. The Eberts agreed to the adoption. "Bruce" and Connie began a relationship in August 2006. At some point, Connie told Bruce that she was pregnant and was considering giving up the child for adoption. Bruce objected to the adoption. After a final attempt to repair their relationship, Bruce and Connie separated permanently in January 2007 and that was when Connie contacted the Eberts about her child. Before the child was born, the Eberts met with Bruce "to discuss a consent to adopt." In late December 2007, Bruce filed a complaint for custody of the child, "Timothy." In July 2008 the Eberts filed an adoption petition and intervened in Bruce's custody case. The superior court ordered paternity testing, and Bruce obtained a positive result. The court appointed counsel for Bruce and consolidated the adoption and custody cases. The superior court ordered an interim custody arrangement after a hearing in December 2008. The court granted physical custody to the Eberts and semiweekly visitation to Bruce. The court also ordered Bruce to pay $50 per month in child support, retroactive to 2007; over the next four months, Bruce paid a total of $200 in support. It was undisputed that Bruce paid no child support before being ordered to do so at a December 2008 hearing. He later testified that he did not realize he had a child support obligation and that the Eberts never applied to the Child Support Services Division for child support. Bruce claimed he was under the impression that the Eberts were wealthy and did not need his financial assistance. In May 2009 the superior court held a trial on the adoption petition and the custody dispute. In post-trial briefing, Bruce argued that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compelled the court to grant Bruce custody of Timothy and prevented the Eberts from adopting Timothy without Bruce's consent. The Eberts argued that Bruce could not invoke ICWA to prevent the adoption because he was not a "parent" for purposes of the statute until he established paternity in late 2008. They also argued that ICWA section 1912(d)'s "active efforts" provision did not apply in a private adoption, particularly when the parent seeking to invoke ICWA had no meaningful connection to any tribe. And they maintained that, even if ICWA applied, the supervised visitation provided to Bruce was adequate to fulfill the active efforts requirement. Finally, they argued that Bruce's consent to the adoption was not required under state law because Bruce could not show that his failure to communicate with or support Timothy during the child's first year of life was justifiable. Connie, who continued to support the adoption, made arguments similar to the Eberts'. The Eberts and Connie appealed the superior court's denial of the adoption, claiming that Bruce's consent to the adoption was unnecessary. The Supreme Court found that under AS 25.23.050(a)(2)(B), the consent of a noncustodial parent was not required for adoption if that parent unjustifiably fails to support the child. But the superior court did not clearly err by concluding that Bruce had justifiable cause for his failure to support the child. View "Ebert v. Bruce L." on Justia Law

"Robert" appealed a superior court decision that his consent was not required for his biological daughter’s adoption. The superior court accepted the superior court standing master’s recommendation that Robert’s consent was not required under AS 25.23.050 because he had abandoned his daughter for a period of over six months, failed to provide for her care and support for over one year, and failed to meaningfully communicate with her for over one year. Because the abandonment finding was well-supported by the record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In Re Adoption of S.F." on Justia Law

Jason Green and Courtney Parks had a dispute over custody of their infant daughter. The superior court awarded joint legal custody but gave Courtney primary physical custody and the “final say” if the parties could not agree on issues of their child’s welfare. Jason appealed the court’s award of custody, a condition that he not consume any alcohol before or during visitation, and the order that he pay all visitation-related travel expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed the custody award and the allocation of visitation expenses, but remanded for reconsideration of whether the evidence supported the no-alcohol condition on Jason’s visitation. View "Green v. Parks" on Justia Law

J.W. was the son of Jeanette Myre, a member of the Asa’carsarmiut Tribe, and John Wheeler, a non-member. In 2007 Myre petitioned the Asa’carsarmiut Tribal Court to assume jurisdiction over the custody of J.W. After a hearing in which both parents participated. The tribal court awarded Myre primary physical custody and granted Wheeler limited visitation rights. In 2011 Wheeler kept J.W. at the end of a visitation period, then initiated custody proceedings in Alaska superior court. Myre moved to enforce the 2007 tribal court custody order; the superior court found it to be a lawful custody order and returned J.W. to Myre’s custody. In 2012 Myre was arrested for child endangerment, and the State of Alaska assumed protective custody of J.W. Wheeler moved for modification of the custody order in the superior court. The Asa’carsarmiut Tribal Council intervened in the superior court proceeding to argue that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to modify the tribal court custody order. The superior court concluded it had modification jurisdiction and determined there had been substantially changed circumstances such that modification was in J.W.’s best interests. The superior court awarded Wheeler primary physical custody. Neither Wheeler nor Myre appealed the superior court’s decision, but the tribal council appealed, arguing that the superior court lacked modification jurisdiction. The narrow question before the Alaska Supreme Court was whether the tribal council has standing to appeal the superior court’s modification decision in light of the parents’ election not to appeal that decision. Concluding that under this circumstance, the tribal council did not have standing, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "Asa'carsarmiut Tribal Council v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Chloe W. appealed the termination of parental rights to her three-year-old son Timothy under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). She claimed the trial court erred by: (1) relying too heavily on a stipulation filed after the close of evidence, which Chloe argued was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) finding that Chloe had not remedied the conduct that placed Timothy at risk; (3) finding that OCS made active efforts to reunify the family; and (4) finding that terminating Chloe’s parental rights was in Timothy’s best interests. Because the trial court’s findings are amply supported by the record and its legal rulings are correct, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating Chloe’s parental rights to Timothy. View "Chloe W. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

Richard and Olga Villars were married in Ukraine in 2004. Richard (a U.S. citizen), signed a Form I-864 affidavit of support in which he agreed to maintain Olga and her daughter, Linda, at 125% of the applicable federal poverty rate. Olga and Linda came to Alaska, and Richard and Olga later divorced. For several years Richard and Olga litigated Richard’s I-864 support obligation. After a previous appeal by Olga regarding Richard’s obligation for the first eleven months of 2010, the Alaska Supreme Court remanded the case to the superior court to resolve Richard’s obligation for that period, which was no longer at issue. The parties have continued to dispute Richard’s I-864 obligations for 2009, December 2010, and all of 2011, 2012, and 2013. Following a series of hearings and orders in the superior court relating to these years, Richard filed this appeal, alleging a variety of errors by the superior court regarding its calculations of his obligations and potential offsets against those obligations. Because the superior court properly rejected Richard’s attempt to relitigate issues resolved in earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s orders rejecting those claims. The case was remanded for further factual findings. View "Villars v. Villars" on Justia Law

A mother appealed a modified decree involving the custody of her three children. The superior court decided that the parents’ inability to communicate justified a modification of the existing joint-custody arrangement, and that the best interests of the children favored an award of sole legal custody to their father. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in making these decisions. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the allocation of the costs of the court-appointed guardian ad litem. The case was remanded for the superior court’s clarification of one issue: whether it meant to include, in its final modified decree, a change to the father’s weekend visitation schedule made by the attorney who drafted the decree. View "Riggs v. Coonradt" on Justia Law