Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ronald and Sharon Stevens separated in August 2006, ending a 40-year marriage. In June 2007 they appeared before the superior court for their divorce trial. Before the trial ended, the parties entered into what they thought was a settlement on the property division issues. But the parties could not agree on the exact terms of the settlement, and in August 2008 they returned to the superior court for a second day of trial on the property division issues. The superior court valued the property, equitably divided the estate, and ordered each side to pay his or her own attorney’s fees. Pertinent to this appeal, the trial court valued the parties’ two residences as of the date of the first day of trial. Sharon appealed and Ronald cross-appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court erred in valuing the real property as of the date of the first day of trial when the second and final trial day occurred over a year later. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Stevens v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Branwen Collier and William Harris are the parents of a daughter, Zada. The parties agreed to shared physical custody of their daughter, and the superior court decided that joint legal custody was in the child’s best interest. The mother later filed a motion for modification of joint legal and shared physical custody, asserting that her work schedule had changed since the parties agreed on a physical custody schedule, that the father had violated court orders, and that he was not communicating effectively. The mother sought sole legal and primary physical custody. The superior court denied the motion without a hearing and awarded attorney’s fees to the father. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision that the mother was not entitled to a hearing on her motion to modify custody under the circumstances of this case, but vacated the award of attorney’s fees. View "Collier v. Harris" on Justia Law

Raising over 50 separate points in this second appeal, Allen Heustess challenged the superior court’s rulings on child support, property distribution, and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court conducted an exhaustive review of the superior court record, and affirmed almost all of the superior court’s rulings, except: (1) because the record did not support the superior court’s finding regarding Mr. Heustess' income for 1995 and because the superior court did not deduct federal income tax liability from his gross income in its child support calculations for the years 1991 to 1996, the Court reversed the court’s calculation of the child support arrearage; (2) because the superior court may have considered Mr. Heustess' "vexatious" litigation conduct when it divided the marital estate and also considered it when it enhanced the award of fees against him, the Court remanded the superior court’s property division for additional findings; (3) the Court vacated the portion of the general fee award that is based on the parties’ relative economic circumstances so it could be reconsidered after the court recalculated Mr. Heustess' child support arrearage and the overall property division. But the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order enhancing the award of fees in Mrs. Bonnie Kelley-Heustess' favor, and affirmed the remaining rulings of the superior court in all respects. View "Heustess v. Kelley-Heustess" on Justia Law

The superior court awarded sole legal custody of two children to their mother, Taunya, upon her motion to modify custody. Their father, William, appealed, arguing that the superior court improperly weighed the best interests of the children. Because the Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the superior court’s conclusions and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion, the Court affirmed the superior court’s decision. View "William P. v. Taunya P." on Justia Law

A child lived with both of his parents for the first two years of his life. His parents then separated, and they shared custody of the child for about a year, first under an informal agreement and later under the terms of the divorce decree. Less than a month after the decree was entered, Appellant Michael Rego (father) notified Appellee Joanna Rego (mother) that he intended to relocate to his former home state. Following a hearing, the superior court ruled that the move constituted a change of circumstances that justified a custody modification. Applying a "best interests" analysis, the superior court awarded custody to the mother if the father moved. The father appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that because the superior court applied the correct legal standard concerning the planned move and it did not abuse its discretion in weighing the best interest factors, the Court affirmed the superior court's decision regarding custody. View "Rego v. Rego" on Justia Law

In 2007, after receiving 39 protective services reports involving allegations of abuse and neglect over the course of fifteen years, the Office of Children's Services (OCS) removed five children from parents "Ralph" and "Nell" based on evidence of physical abuse, mental inure, and chronic neglect. OCS put the children in foster care and provided the parents with case plans. Ralph and Nell had a sixth child. The superior court terminated parental rights to the newborn's older brother, but a separate trial was held with respect to her. Based on evidence of the parents' unremedied conduct and conditions that made the newborn a "child in need of aid," the superior court concluded that it was in the newborn's best interest to terminate Ralph and Nell's parental rights to her. Ralph appealed the termination order and the denial of his motion for continued visitation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the superior court did not clearly err in finding Ralph had not timely remedied the conduct and conditions that placed the newborn at substantial risk of harm. The Court concluded that the superior court properly concluded that Ralph failed to show that ordering continued visitation after termination of parental rights was in the child's best interests. Therefore, the Court affirmed the superior court's order. View "Ralph H. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Human Svcs." on Justia Law

Christina J. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her son Gideon. She developed substance abuse problems as a young teenager and because involved in an abusive relationship with Gideon's father shortly after leaving custody of the Office of Children's Services (OCS). Gideon was born when Christina was 19 and removed from her custody when he was four months old after OCS received reports of violence, substance abuse and neglect from both parents. Christina participated in substance abuse, domestic violence and mental health assessments, but nine months after OCS took custody of Gideon, it petitioned to terminate her parental rights. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Christina failed to remedy the conduct that placed Gideon at a substantial risk of harm. Accordingly, the Court held that the lower court did not err by finding termination of Christina's parental rights was in Gideon's best interest. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Christina J. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Appellant Phyllis Williams appealed an order of the superior court that denied four motions to reconsider child support, visitation arrangements, the appointment of a court custody investigator, and a share of her ex-husband Appellee DeJeaux Williams' military retirement pay. Both parties appeared pro se. Upon careful consideration of all of Ms. Williams' arguments, the Supreme Court found that Ms. Williams' motions were either untimely or otherwise lacked merit. The Court dismissed Ms. Williams' appeal and affirmed the lower court's orders on all matters raised on appeal.

Bryan and Leota Bagby divorced in 2008. Mr. Bagby was awarded custody of the coupleâs only child during the school year. Mrs. Bagby was awarded visitation in the summer months and on alternate holidays. Mr. Bagby moved to Arizona after the custody trial. Mrs. Bagby filed a motion to modify the custody order, but the court denied the motion without holding a hearing. The court reasoned that Mr. Bagbyâs move was not a substantial change in circumstances since the original order contemplated long-distance travel for visitation when both parents lived in different cities in Alaska. Mrs. Bagby appealed. The Supreme Court had consistently held that an out-of-state move is a substantial change in circumstances. In this case, the Court reversed the lower courtâs order and remanded the case for a hearing on Mrs. Bagbyâs motion to modify custody.