Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ed and Kristina B. had one son before they separated. The superior court heard evidence about domestic violence on Ed’s part and Kristina’s medical and substance-abuse issues. The court granted sole legal and primary physical custody of the child to Ed. Kristina appealed many of the court’s findings of fact and legal rulings. Upon review, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the superior court for reconsideration of: (1) whether Kristina’s child support obligation should be reduced to reflect the significant cost of her court-ordered urinalysis testing; and (2) whether the restrictive visitation schedule was justified once Kristina has demonstrated a history of sobriety. The Court affirmed with respect to all other issues. View "Kristina B. v. Edward B." on Justia Law

Michael Reilly and Jaime Vinette lived together and had a son, Barlow. Reilly stopped working in Alaska and moved to Butte, Montana, where he worked part time repairing and renting out homes and managing a bar. Vinette had custody of Barlow during the school year, and Reilly had custody for six weeks during the summer. Reilly moved to have his child support modified to reflect the fact that his income had fallen. Vinette countered that he was voluntarily underemployed. The superior court found that Reilly could work full time and that he was voluntarily and unreasonably underemployed. The court did not find Reilly’s testimony regarding the various reasons he alleged that prevented him from working as credible. The superior court imputed income to Reilly based on the average wage in southwestern Montana for career paths the court believed Reilly would be qualified to pursue. Reilly appealed, arguing that the imputation of income was improper, the amount to be imputed was calculated incorrectly, and the superior court erred in its written child support order by not including a visitation credit for his summers with Barlow. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s findings and orders, except that the Court remanded the child support order for a correction of a minor omission of visitation credit. View "Reilly v. Northrup" on Justia Law

A grandmother petitioned for visitation with her daughter’s four children. The superior court denied the petition, finding that the grandmother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that visitation was in the best interests of the children. The grandmother appealed, arguing: (1) the superior court erred by applying the clear and convincing burden of proof; (2) the record did not support the superior court’s conclusion that the grandmother had not established ongoing personal contact with the children; and (3) the record did not support the superior court’s conclusion that the grandmother failed to prove visitation was in the best interests of the children. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court applied the correct burden of proof and that its conclusions were adequately supported by the evidence presented at trial. View "Hawkins v. Williams" on Justia Law

Two sisters reported that they were abused by their grandparents while they were entrusted to the legal custody of the Office of Children’s Services (OCS). The sisters sued OCS, and a jury awarded them substantial damages, concluding that OCS was responsible for 95% of their damages and that their grandparents were not responsible for any of their damages. On appeal, OCS argued that the verdict should have been set aside. Because the evidence supporting the jury’s allocation of fault was so insubstantial as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that OCS was entitled to a new trial. View "State, Dept. of Health & Social Services v. Mullins" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a father’s motion to modify the custody arrangement of the parties’ two children. The superior court awarded primary physical and sole legal custody to the father after hearing testimony from a custody investigator and both parties. The mother appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion because it modified the custody order based on evidence that existed when the court denied another motion to modify custody five years earlier. But because there was new evidence of substance abuse and untreated mental health issues, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err by concluding there was a material change in circumstances and, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, did not abuse its discretion by awarding primary physical and sole legal custody to the father. View "Frackman v. Enzor" on Justia Law

Yelena R. and George R. were involved in an on-again, off-again relationship for more than a decade and had two children together. Yelena accused George of sexually assaulting her in 2011 while they were living together. After the Kodiak magistrate found Yelena’s testimony unpersuasive and denied her request for a long-term domestic violence protective order, Yelena took the children to Massachusetts without notifying George. A Massachusetts court ordered the children to be returned to Kodiak and this custody case followed. After a custody trial, the superior court granted sole legal and primary physical custody of the children to George and ordered supervised visitation between Yelena and the children. Yelena appealed that order and visitation restrictions. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether the superior court had jurisdiction to make final custody decisions regarding the children. The Supreme Court concluded the superior court had jurisdiction, properly declined to apply Alaska's domestic violence presumption, adequately considered Alaska's “best interest” factors, and made no clearly erroneous factual findings. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding custody of the children to George. It was error, however, for the superior court to require supervised visitation without making adequate findings to support the visitation restrictions and by failing to establish a plan for Yelena to achieve unsupervised visitation. It was also an abuse of discretion to delegate to George the authority to end the supervision requirement. The Court affirmed the superior court’s award of custody to George, but remanded the case for further proceedings on the issue of Yelena’s visitation. View "Yelena R. v. George R." on Justia Law

The State of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage exempt from municipal property taxation $150,000 of the assessed value of the residence of an owner who is a senior citizen or disabled veteran. But the full value of the exemption is potentially unavailable if a person who is not the owner’s spouse also occupies the residence. Contending that the exemption program violated their rights to equal protection and equal opportunities, three Anchorage same-sex couples in committed, long-term, intimate relationships sued the State and the Municipality. The superior court ruled for all three couples. The State and Municipality appealed. As to two of the couples, the Supreme Court affirmed: same-sex couples, who may not marry or have their marriages recognized in Alaska, cannot benefit or become eligible to benefit from the exemption program to the same extent as heterosexual couples, who are married or may marry. The exemption program therefore potentially treats same-sex couples less favorably than it treats opposite-sex couples even though the two classes are similarly situated. The identified governmental interests do not satisfy even minimum scrutiny. The exemption program therefore violates the two couples’ equal protection rights as guaranteed by article I, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution. As to the third couple, the Court reversed the ruling in their favor because it concluded that the program did not exempt a residence from taxation unless the senior citizen or veteran had some ownership interest in it. If the senior citizen or veteran has no actual ownership interest, the program treats a same-sex couple the same as a heterosexual couple by denying the exemption to both couples, rendering marital status and the ability to marry irrelevant. Because the senior citizen member of the third couple had no ownership interest in the residence, that couple had no viable equal protection claim. View "Alaska v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

Raymond Boulds and Elena Nielsen were unmarried cohabitants for 16 years and raised children together. When their relationship ended, they litigated child custody and property ownership. The court determined that the insurance death benefit and the 401(k) retirement account were not domestic partnership assets and belonged to Boulds alone. But the court determined that the union pension was a domestic partnership asset and was subject to division. Because Boulds appealed to the Supreme court, the superior court had not yet issued an order dividing the union pension. Boulds argued that federal law prohibited dividing his union pension with a non-spouse, and that the superior court misapplied Alaska law by examining only Boulds’s own initial intent to share the union pension with Nielsen for the benefit of their children. The Supreme Court concluded that federal law did not bar Nielsen from receiving a share of the union pension and that the superior court did not err in determining Nielsen was entitled to half of the union pension under Alaska law. View "Boulds v. Nielsen" on Justia Law

Jean Kollander sought to modify the pension division in a qualified domestic relations order originally entered by the superior court in 1992. The federal pension administrator paid Jean's share of her former spouse's pension in accelerated lump sum payments from 2007 to 2008. In 2012 Jean brought a claim that she was instead entitled to lifetime monthly payments. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found that her claim was barred by laches and awarded full attorney's fees and costs to her former spouse. Jean appealed that decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court's findings of unreasonable delay and prejudice were not clearly erroneous and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in applying laches. But because the superior court failed to apply Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82 in the award of attorney's fees, the Court reversed that award and remand for a determination of attorney's fees. View "Kollander v. Kollander" on Justia Law

The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) became involved with Emma D. and her newborn son, Joey, following reports from Covenant House expressing concern about Emma’s homelessness, inability to care for an infant, and feelings of depression and aggression toward Joey. Emma D. has a history of mental health issues, particularly bipolar disorder, dating back to her early childhood. OCS took the then-six-month-old Joey into emergency custody during Joey’s hospitalization for respiratory syncytial virus and dehydration, during which he was also diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia, a heart disorder that required regular attention and treatment. OCS staff subsequently made attempts to assist Emma in obtaining regular mental health treatment in order to reunite her with Joey. OCS staff had difficulty communicating and meeting with Emma; she failed to engage in regular treatment, maintain consistent visitation with Joey, or attend her appointments with case workers and service providers. The superior court terminated Emma’s parental rights 14 months after OCS assumed emergency custody. Emma argued on appeal that OCS failed to consider adequately her mental health issues and therefore its efforts were not reasonable. She also appealed the superior court’s finding that she had failed to remedy her conduct in a reasonable time. After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding no reversible error in the superior court’s decision terminating Emma’s parental rights. View "Emma D. v. Alaska" on Justia Law