Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A mother appealed an order that modified her child support obligation. She argued that the court improperly calculated the father's self-employment income and also erred by imputing a 40-hour workweek when calculating her income. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court agreed that the court did not conduct a sufficient review of the father's business expenses, reimbursements, and in-kind contributions to determine his adjusted annual income for child support purposes. And the superior court erred in finding mother was underemployed. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded for recalculation of the child support award. View "Mallory D. v. Malcom D." on Justia Law

The parties in this dispute initially lived together in Alaska, but when relationship ended before the birth of their daughter, the mother relocated to California. After lengthy litigation, the superior court awarded the father primary custody based on its findings that: (1) the father was more likely to foster a close and continuing relationship between the mother and the child; (2) the stability factor slightly favored the father; and (3) the mother’s flexibility in caring for the child would be slightly limited due to the impending birth of her second child. The mother appealed, arguing that the superior court's findings were clearly erroneous. She also argued that the court erred in its application of the custody statute, in disregarding the custody investigator’s recommendations, and in formulating various aspects of the final custody order. After its review, the Supreme Court affirmed the custody order, but remanded on the issue of visitation costs to clarify ambiguity in the court’s order. View "Nancy M. v. John M." on Justia Law

Joshua Wilhour moved for modification of child support based on his recent relocation to share custody of his son, and because his income had been reduced. Joshua and his former wife Jacqueline each alleged the other was voluntarily unemployed (or underemployed). The trial court modified child support based on Joshua's income on what he had earned before he moved. Joshua appealed that calculation, and the trial court's denial of his request for a hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing and for reconsideration of the effective date of the modification. View "Wilhour v. Wilhour" on Justia Law

Four children tested positive at birth for cocaine. After the fourth child was born, the Office of Children's Services (OCS) took custody of the child and placed him with his maternal grandmother. Based on the mother's history of untreated substance abuse, OCS filed a petition for termination of the her parental rights months after the child was born. After trial, the superior court concluded that termination was in the best interests of the child. The mother appealed, arguing that she was not given a reasonable time to remedy her substance abuse issues, that OCS did not exercise reasonable efforts over the short period prior to termination, and that termination eight months after birth was not in her child's best interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court because it properly considered the mother's history with OCS, her conduct after the child's birth, and the best interests of the child. View "Amy M. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A mother living in Alaska filed a petition in Alaska to enforce summer visitation with her son, who lived in Tennessee with his father. After the superior court resolved the visitation issue, the father appealed, arguing that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case or, in the alternative, that the superior court should have voluntarily ceded jurisdiction to Tennessee because Alaska was an inconvenient forum. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court had jurisdiction to hear the case and did not abuse its discretion by deciding that Alaska was not an inconvenient forum. View "Steven D. v. Nicole J." on Justia Law

Grandparents were permitted to adopt their grandchild without the consent of the biological father. The superior court found that the father's consent was not required because he failed significantly without justifiable cause to communicate meaningfully with the child for a period of at least one year. On appeal, the father did not challenge the superior court's finding that he failed to communicate meaningfully with the child for at least the year-long period; he argued that this failure was justified by: (1) his incarceration; (2) an agreement he allegedly had with the child's biological mother; (3) alleged interference by the grandparents; and (4) the totality of the circumstances. The father also argued that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to consider visitation rights and by awarding attorney's fees against him. Because the record did not support the father's argument that his failure to communicate meaningfully with the child was justified, the Supreme Court concluded the superior court did not clearly err in finding that this failure was unjustified. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court's finding that the father waived his right to consent to the adoption. Because the issue of visitation rights was not raised before the superior court, the Court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider the issue. Finally, because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees against the father, the Court affirmed that award. View "David S. v. Jared H." on Justia Law

Maryna and Kenneth Stanhope divorced in 2010. The superior court divided the marital property 50/50, awarding the marital home to Maryna on condition she remove Kenneth from the mortgage and make an equalization payment. Kenneth appealed the division of property, claiming the house was his separate non-marital property, or that the superior court did not divide the marital property 50/50. Finding no abuse of the superior court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Stanhope v. Stanhope" on Justia Law

The parties in this case divorced in 1992. The divorce decree did not divide their property. The husband received military retirement benefits; the wife filed a motion seeking a post decree equitable division of property. The husband opposed, arguing that the wife's claim was barred by: (1) the statute of limitations; (2) laches; and (3) estoppel. The superior court concluded that the wife could properly bring her motion, that her motion was not barred by the statute of limitations, and that laches barred only the retrospective division of the husband's retirement benefits. The husband appealed. Because the wife's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the wife was entitled to a prospective division of retirement benefits, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court with respect to these issues. However, because the court erred in setting the effective date of the property division, the case was remanded with instructions to correct the effective date. View "Schaub v. Schaub" on Justia Law

Olga Villars sued her former husband, Richard Villars, for his failure to pay spousal support in 2010. Following a trial at which both parties appeared, the trial court ruled that the amount Richard owed Olga had to be reduced to account for (1) the smaller size of her household while her daughter was living with Richard, (2) the lower federal poverty level in California, where Olga had moved, (3) the substantial contributions for support Olga received from her second husband, and (4) Olga’s earned income. Olga appealed these rulings. Because the Supreme Court found that the trial court clearly erred in its calculation of the amount of support contributed by Olga’s second husband, the case was remanded for further consideration of that issue. View "Villars v. Villars" on Justia Law

After a father left his job with Alaska and moved to Nevada, he left the mother with primary physical custody of their daughter. The mother filed a motion to modify child support. The superior court ordered a modification and imputed income to the father after concluding that the father appeared unmotivated to find employment because he was apparently content to collect unemployment benefits. The superior court also expressed concern that the father had not sufficiently planned for how he would meet his child support obligations in the event that he could not find work in Nevada. The father subsequently found a state job in Nevada that paid substantially less than his imputed income, and he moved to modify and reduce his child support obligation. The superior court denied the father’s request. The father argued on appeal that the superior court abused its discretion in imputing income, erred in the amount that it imputed, and abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify his child support obligation. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not provide a sufficient factual basis for its denial of the father’s motion to modify child support, it vacated the superior court’s order and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Petrilla v. Petrilla" on Justia Law