Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Eight days after relinquishing her parental rights to twin children, their mother filed a motion requesting that the superior court order the Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services (OCS) to release the children's annual Permanent Fund Dividends (dividends) to her. The superior court granted the motion. The guardian ad litem (GAL) and OCS opposed her motion. The superior court ordered OCS to provide proof of compliance with 15 AAC 23.223(i). OCS filed copies of the address change forms and an affidavit of the OCS employee who completed the forms stating OCS had complied with the Department's regulation. The superior court concluded OCS's filing did not comply with the regulation's "evidence of the change in legal custody" requirement and ordered OCS to release the dividends to the mother. The GAL sought reconsideration, which the superior court denied. The Supreme Court granted the GAL's petition for review. OCS and the GAL argued that the fact the Department paid the dividends to OCS suggests the Department itself thought the change of address forms were sufficient to comply with 15 AAC 23.223(i) and the superior court should have deferred to the Department's determination. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed: the superior court (and all of the parties in the superior court proceeding) knew of OCS's custody of the children because the superior court itself signed the custody order. "There was and could be no dispute that OCS actually was entitled to redirect and hold the children's dividends, regardless of the information provided to the Department." The Court reversed the superior court's decision. View "Tea, Guardian Ad Litem, on Behalf of A.T. and S.T." on Justia Law

"Jade" is the biological daughter of Roy and Sheila. Jade is an Indian child as defined in the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Between 1998 and 2007, the Office of Children's Services (OCS) received at least 12 reports of drug abuse and child neglect in the family. Before Jade's birth in September 2004, the couple's older children were transferred to OCS custody for two years. Roy and Sheila attempted to complete drug treatment programs but were unsuccessful. Sheila relapsed while pregnant with Jade; her discharge report from the treatment program indicated she tested positive for cocaine in August 2005 and stopped attending treatment sessions or contacting drug counselors in October 2005. Roy was discharged for positive drug tests and missing treatment. Since being taken into OCS custody in July 2008, Jade has lived in five separate placements. In its termination order, the superior court found that termination of parental rights was in Jade's best interests and that OCS made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. Roy contested three of the superior court's findings: that OCS made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family; that termination was in Jade's best interests; and that good cause existed to deviate from the ICWA placement preferences. Sheila did not appeal the superior court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the record supported the superior court's conclusions with regard to OCS's efforts to keep the family together, and that it was in Jade's best interests to terminate Roy's parental rights. View "Roy S. v. Alaksa" on Justia Law

M.K. is a 34-year-old mentally ill Alaska Native woman who lived in a rural village. In 1999, when M.K. was 22, her father A.K. sexually assaulted her. M.K. reported the crime to police, but soon changed her story and A.K. was not tried at that time. A.K. continued to live with the family for four years until advances in DNA evidence led to his case being reopened, and to A.K. being charged and convicted in 2003 of the sexual assault. M.K.'s mother remained married to A.K., who has since been released from prison and was on probation and prohibited from living with M.K. M.K.'s mother had no plans to divorce A.K., and testified that she is not sure whether A.K. will return to live with the family when his probation ends. The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) petitioned for guardianship of M.K. in July 2008 based on M.K.'s mental illness and her inability to manage her own care. The court visitor completed a report, and a hearing was held over several days, following which the superior court appointed the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) as M.K.'s full guardian. M.K. objected to this decision. The superior court treated her written objection as an implicit motion for reconsideration and denied it. M.K. appealed, arguing that the superior court erred in its application of the guardianship statutes in her case, in its best interest finding that OPA should be appointed in place of M.K.'s mother, and in appointing OPA as a full (as opposed to partial) guardian. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "In Re Protective Proceedings of M.K." on Justia Law

A woman died intestate survived by her husband and three adult children from a previous marriage. The husband had acquired a boat for a fishing charter business during his marriage to the decedent, but the boat and charter business were titled in his name alone. Relying on principles of equitable distribution for divorce cases, the estate's personal representative asked the court to include half the value of the boat and a skiff in the estate's property because marital funds had been used to purchase them. The court denied this request, and the estate's assets were distributed according to statute. The children appealed, contending their mother's estate held an undivided interest in the boats and business. Because the superior court correctly decided that the equitable distribution framework for divorce proceedings did not apply in probate proceedings, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "Pestrikoff v. Hoff" on Justia Law

A father appealed various procedural actions taken by the superior court in his divorce and custody proceeding. Appearing pro se, he alleged that the court’s expedited procedures violated his due process rights and reflected judicial bias. He also argued that the court abused its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees. Because the court’s procedures did not violate the father’s due process rights and the father has not shown that the court was biased against him, the Supreme Court affirmed the procedural decisions of the superior court. But because the superior court did not follow the established process for the award of attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s attorney’s fees order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Berry v. Berry" on Justia Law

Richard Villars and Kathleen Villars were married in 1984, divorced in 2002. Richard served in the military for most of the marriage, first in the United States Air Force and later in the Alaska Air National Guard. Prior to filing their dissolution, the parties drafted a settlement agreement dividing their property such that each person was to receive half of the marital estate. The value of Richard’s military retirement benefits was not known at the time of dissolution because he had not yet qualified for benefits. However, Richard and Kathleen agreed to split the marital portion of Richard’s military retirement benefits 50/50 should Richard receive them. Richard began collecting his military retirement benefits in 2009 at the age of 48, twelve years earlier than he and Kathleen had expected at the time of dissolution. Kathleen asserted she was entitled to collect her marital portion of Richard’s military retirement benefits when Richard began collecting them. Richard disagreed, arguing that the parties intended Kathleen to collect only when Richard turned 60 years old. The superior court determined that the settlement agreement was unambiguous and the parties intended to divide equally the marital portion of Richard’s military retirement benefits when he began receiving them, not when he turned 60. The superior court ordered Richard to repay Kathleen 50% of the marital portion of the retirement benefits he had received to date. Richard appealed, arguing that the superior court’s finding on the parties’ intent was erroneous and that the retirement benefits were his separate property until he reached the age of 60. Richard further argued that the superior court impermissibly modified the settlement agreement. Because the findings of the superior court were not clearly erroneous and the superior court did not make an impermissible modification to the settlement agreement, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Villars v. Villars" on Justia Law

A father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, an Indian child within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). He challenged the superior court's findings that the Office of Children's Services (OCS) made active efforts to prevent the breakup of his Indian family, arguing that OCS failed to investigate placement with his extended family members and did not provide him with adequate visitation and remedial services. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that OCS made active efforts, and accordingly affirmed OCS's decision. View "Josh L. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

This case arose from a Child In Need of Aid (CINA) case involving four Indian children who were removed from their parents’ care due to substance abuse and domestic violence. The children were placed with their maternal grandmother, who claimed that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) permanently removed the children and placed them with a non-Native foster family while she was away in Montana caring for her elderly mother. There were substantiated reports of harm relating to the grandmother’s care, and the tribe expressed dissatisfaction with the children’s placement with their grandmother. After removing the children, OCS did not provide the grandmother with notice of scheduled permanency or placement hearings for the children. Over a year after returning from Montana, the grandmother formally requested that the children be placed with her. OCS denied this request and the grandmother appealed, arguing that the children should be placed with her and that the failure to provide her with notice of hearings conducted during the preceding year violated her due process rights. After a full hearing, the superior court denied the request, finding good cause to deviate from the Indian Child Welfare Act’s (ICWA) placement preferences. The court further concluded that the grandmother was neither entitled to notice of earlier hearings nor prejudiced by a lack of notice. After the superior court proceedings, the children were adopted by the foster family with whom they had bonded. The grandmother appealed the adoption. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that because there was not good cause to deviate from the ICWA preferences, the adoption should be set aside and OCS should begin to reunify her with her grandchildren. The grandmother was correct in her argument that she did not receive proper notice of the earlier permanency proceedings. But because any prejudice to the grandmother was cured by the subsequent hearing in which she participated and was able to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and because the superior court did not commit plain error by finding good cause to deviate from ICWA’s placement preferences, the Court affirmed the superior court’s ruling. View "Paula E. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A couple lived together briefly in New Mexico and then separated, with the man moving permanently to Alaska. Shortly after he moved, the woman ("Stephanie W.") discovered that she was pregnant and gave birth to a son. The child had no contact with his father for the first three years of his life. At his paternal grandmother's initiative, the child then visited his father in Alaska several times over a three-year period, including a year-long visit during which he attended kindergarten in Alaska. After the boy returned to New Mexico, the boy's father filed for legal and primary physical custody. After a trial, the superior court awarded primary physical custody to the father and summertime visitation to the mother. Legal custody as to schooling decisions was awarded to the father. Legal custody as to all other decisions was awarded jointly to the mother and father. The mother appealed. Because Stephanie has not shown that the superior court's findings on a sexual abuse issue were clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's finding that the child had not been sexually abused by the father. But the Court remanded the custody issue for a new consideration of the best interests of the child in two respects: (1) Because Stephanie brought her allegations of sexual abuse against the father in good faith, the Court remanded for reconsideration of the "close and continuing relationship" factor in accordance with this opinion; and (2) because the court did not discuss the father's ongoing obligation to support the child, the Court remanded for consideration of the continuity and stability factor. View "Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V." on Justia Law

Rudy R. moved to modify the agreement through which he and Heather W. shared 50-50 custody of their daughter. He argued that recent legal troubles and instability in Heather's life amounted to changed circumstances that required modifying the custody agreement in the child's best interests. The superior court agreed. Heather appealed, arguing that the evidence did not show that any of her changed circumstances affected her child. The superior court also found that it was in the child's best interests for Rudy to have primary physical custody. Heather argued this was an abuse of discretion because the trial court considered impermissible character evidence, gave disproportionate weight to some factors while ignoring others, and refused to consider evidence of past domestic violence between the parties. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by finding changed circumstances and did not assign disproportionate weight to certain statutory best interest factors. But because the issue of domestic violence was never adjudicated, the Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Rudy has a history of domestic violence, and, if so, whether he rebutted the statutory presumption against an award of custody. View "Heather W. v. Rudy R." on Justia Law