Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In May 2011, the superior court modified an existing child support order, specifying that the modification was to be effective as of March 2007. But because the motion requesting modification was not filed until February 2008, the superior court’s order constituted a retroactive modification. Furthermore, the superior court modified the child support award based on its finding that the father’s income exceeded the maximum amount specified in Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3(c)(2). Because retroactive modification of child support is prohibited and because the superior court’s determination of the amount owed did not conform to the analysis specified in Rule 90.3(a), the Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s modification of the child support order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Swaney v. Granger" on Justia Law

Appellant Simone Greenway sued Appellee Larry Heathcott alleging among other things, identity theft and breach of domestic partnership and fiduciary duties. After a bench trial at which both parties were pro se, the superior court denied Appellant's claims. She argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in denying her a continuance so a particular lawyer could represent her when he became available, so she could compose her case, and so she could obtain testimony from a witness whose subpoena was quashed. She also argued that the court failed to help her sufficiently and failed to explain she could call the witnesses telephonically after it rejected her witness affidavits. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion as to these issues. She also asserted that the trial judge was biased, or appeared to be biased, against her. The audio recording of the trial refuted those assertions and demonstrated that the trial judge was impartial, patient, and courteous in dealing with Greenway and in trying to obtain understandable evidence from her. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court's judgment. View "Greenway v. Heathcott" on Justia Law

Thea G. challenged the superior court’s order terminating her parental rights to her two children, twelve-year old Zach, and six-year old Abbie. The superior court terminated Thea’s parental rights based on her unremedied substance abuse issues. Thea raised three issues on appeal: (1) the superior court’s finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) made active efforts to prevent the breakup of her family; (2) the finding that if her custody over Zach and Abbie were continued the children would likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage; and (3) the finding that termination of her parental rights is in Zach’s and Abbie’s best interests. Because each of these findings was supported by sufficient evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order terminating Thea’s parental rights to Zach and Abbie. View "Thea G. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Malcolm D. and Mallory D. were married and had three children, Jason, Brooke, and Megan. In August 2009 Malcolm and Mallory filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties agreed to joint legal custody and shared physical custody. In May 2010 Mallory moved to modify custody; she wanted sole legal and primary physical custody of Brooke and Megan, as well as additional visitation with Jason. Mallory asserted a change in circumstances because Brooke reported being singled out among the children for punishment and Malcolm being mean to her. Malcolm opposed, contending there was no change in circumstance to warrant custody modification and that the modification would not be in the best interests of the children. The superior court found that there was a change in circumstance regarding Brooke and Megan but denied Mallory's motion to modify custody for the daughters. Upon its review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that when both parents are found to have a history of domestic violence and neither parent is more likely to perpetrate violence than the other, the superior court has the discretion to determine that the presumption set forth in AS 25.24.150(g) does not apply. Furthermore, the Court Concluded that the superior court did not clearly err when making its factual findings and did not abuse its discretion when it weighed the best interest factors under AS 25.24.150(c) and determined that custody should not be modified. View "Mallory D. v. Malcolm D." on Justia Law

A father challenged a superior court’s decision to terminate his parental rights, arguing that the court’s conclusions were not supported by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was not in the best interests of the child, and that the court improperly considered certain facts. Because the record supported the superior court’s decision to terminate the father’s parental rights, and because the superior court properly considered the record as a whole, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sherman B. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

Tierice Coleman is the biological father of two minor sons, T.C. and J.C. T.C. was born in January 2000 to Elka McCullough, a woman with whom Coleman had a brief relationship. J.C. was born in March 2000 to Laura Bianchi, a woman with whom Coleman had a long-term relationship at the time of J.C.'s birth and with whom he was cohabitating at the time of trial. McCullough petitioned for child support with respect to T.C. Coleman did not contest that he owed support, but he argued that he should be allowed a deduction under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3(a)(1)(D) because he was currently living with J.C., the child of his relationship with Bianchi, and his relationship with Bianchi commenced prior to his relationship with McCulluogh. McCullough argued that because J.C. was born after T.C., Coleman should not be allowed the deduction. The superior court concluded that Coleman was not entitled to a deduction. Coleman appealed the superior court's ruling to the Supreme Court who affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Coleman v. McCullough" on Justia Law

A mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her young son. The mother had a long history of substance abuse and relinquished parental rights to her older daughter in 2008 because she was unable to care for her. During the 18 months following the child’s removal, the mother continued to abuse drugs until she was incarcerated. At that point, she entered an intensive residential substance abuse program at the prison, which she successfully completed two weeks prior to the termination trial. In appealing the superior court’s order terminating her parental rights, the mother argued to the Supreme Court that the court erroneously: (1) denied her motion to continue the termination proceedings; (2) determined that termination was in the best interests of the child; and (3) failed to consider legal guardianship as an alternative to termination. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Hannah B. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Judith R. challenged the superior court's order terminating her parental rights to her son, "Dexter." The court terminated her rights based on her longstanding, unremedied mental illness. In its ruling on the record, the court sua sponte, directed the parties to consult with Dexter's therapist about the advisability of allowing continued contact between Judith and Dexter following termination of Judith's parental rights, but the court's written order made no mention of post-termination contact. On appeal, Judith challenged the superior court's finding that termination of her parental rights was in Dexter's best interests and the court's failure to issue a "detailed order regarding post-termination visitation." Because the court's best interests finding was supported by substantial evidence and because the court was not required to address post-termination contact in its termination order, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Judith R. v. Dept. of Health & Social Svcs." on Justia Law

Victoria ("Vicky") Cox and John Floreske were married in July 1981. They separated in September 2007 and divorced in June 2009. During their marriage, Vicky and John amassed a highly illiquid marital estate including three businesses and two subdivisions. After a bench trial each party was awarded a mutual right of first refusal on all properties awarded to the other party. This right was personal to the parties and would not survive them. Vicky appealed the superior court’s denial of her motion for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(b)(4) and (5) arguing that: (1) the mutual right of first refusal is void under Civil Rule 60(b)(4); and (2) the superior court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to vacate the mutual right of first refusal under Civil Rule 60(b)(5). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to vacate the mutual right of first refusal under Civil Rule 60(b)(5). View "Cox v. Floreske" on Justia Law

Helen S. K. and Samuel M. K. were married in 1990. Helen filed for divorce in December 2010, requesting sole legal and primary physical custody of the parties' three minor children and equitable division of the marital assets. Samuel counterclaimed, requesting joint legal and shared physical custody of the children. The superior court awarded joint legal custody of all three children, shared physical custody of the parties' two younger children, but awarded Samuel primary physical custody of the parties' oldest child. The court imputed income to Helen and required that she pay Samuel child support. The court divided the parties' marital assets equally and made other decisions concerning the valuation and distribution of certain marital assets. Helen appealed this decision on several grounds, including the use of in camera interviews, the primary physical custody award to Samuel, the imputation of income, the equal property division, and the valuation and distribution of many of the assets. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with respect to the court's valuation of one asset, but affirmed all of its other decisions. View "Helen S. K. v. Samuel M. K." on Justia Law