Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A young adult with intellectual and developmental disabilities, referred to as G.J.F., moved to Alaska in 2021 and was referred by a homeless shelter to Volunteers of America Alaska (VOA), a nonprofit organization. VOA provided intensive case management support, including housing assistance and help with applying for government benefits. Despite initial resistance from G.J.F., a consistent therapeutic relationship was eventually established. VOA petitioned the superior court to appoint the Public Guardian as a full guardian for G.J.F., arguing that less restrictive alternatives were not feasible or adequate to meet G.J.F.'s needs.The superior court appointed a visitor and scheduled a hearing. The visitor's report and a neuropsychological evaluation indicated that G.J.F. had multiple mental health diagnoses and significant difficulties with decision-making and daily living tasks. The master recommended a full guardianship, but the Public Guardian objected, leading to an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, VOA staff testified about the extensive support they provided to G.J.F. and the limitations of their services. The court found that VOA's services were not sustainable and that G.J.F. needed decision-making support that only a full guardian could provide.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's order appointing the Public Guardian as a full guardian for G.J.F. The court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining that less restrictive alternatives were not feasible or adequate to meet G.J.F.'s needs. The court found that the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting the need for a full guardianship, given G.J.F.'s significant vulnerabilities and the limitations of VOA's support. The court also noted that relying on the visitor's report, which was not admitted into evidence, was harmless error because the same information was provided through other evidence. View "In the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of G.J.F" on Justia Law

Dawn Maynor and Timothy Golden, who resided together in Alaska, moved to Oklahoma and then Louisiana due to Timothy's military transfers. They married in Oklahoma in 2017 and had a child in Louisiana in February 2018. The couple separated shortly after the child's birth, and in May 2018, they filed for dissolution of their marriage in Alaska, claiming Alaska residency despite living in Illinois and Louisiana. The superior court in Alaska granted the dissolution in August 2018, including a custody order giving Dawn primary physical custody and shared legal custody.Timothy later moved back to Alaska and, in September 2023, filed a motion to modify the custody arrangement, seeking joint physical custody. Dawn did not oppose this motion but instead filed a motion for relief from the 2018 custody order, arguing that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to decide child custody initially. The superior court denied Dawn's motion, concluding that Alaska was the child's home state due to the parents' claimed residency and the child's temporary absence from Alaska.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and determined that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make the initial child custody determination. The court found that the child had never lived in Alaska, and Louisiana was the child's home state within six months before the commencement of the dissolution proceedings. Since Louisiana had jurisdiction and did not decline it, the superior court in Alaska could not assert jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed the superior court's denial of Dawn's motion for relief from judgment and vacated the original custody order due to the lack of jurisdiction. View "Maynor v. Golden" on Justia Law

Peter and Julia Chapman married in 2007 and have one minor child. Julia filed for legal separation in 2018, and they agreed to share custody and calculate child support based on their incomes. In July 2020, they stipulated that Peter would pay $500 per month in child support through December 2020, with modifications based on their incomes starting January 2021. The court adopted this stipulation. In April 2021, Peter's child support obligation was set at $31.35 per month based on his 2020 income of $45,000.Julia moved to modify child support in May 2022, believing Peter's income had increased due to his acquisition of new businesses and the creation of the Cephas Trust. Peter opposed the modification, arguing there was no proof of increased income. The court ordered Peter to provide proof of income, revealing his 2021 adjusted gross income was $861,382. Julia pursued the modification, arguing Peter's income justified a higher child support obligation.The Superior Court of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, held an evidentiary hearing. Peter testified that his primary income was his salary from Alaska Auto Rentals (AAR), and the remaining income was from businesses in the Cephas Trust, which he controlled but chose not to draw from. The court found that Peter had access to the trust's income and was underreporting his income by taking a low salary. The court imputed income to Peter based on the trust's earnings and set his child support obligation at $1,167.35 per month, using the income cap of $126,000.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the superior court did not err in finding a material change of circumstances or abuse its discretion by imputing income to Peter. The court concluded that Peter's control over the trust and its income justified the increased child support obligation. View "Chapman v. Chapman" on Justia Law

A father of four was accused of sexually abusing his 12-year-old daughter, leading to the removal of his children from the home. The primary issue was whether the father's conduct, including washing his daughter's breasts during lengthy showers, could be considered normal caretaking or affection. The father argued that the superior court relied on facts not in evidence, violated his Fifth Amendment rights by drawing an adverse inference from his refusal to testify, and erred in concluding that his conduct amounted to sexual abuse.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Kenai, found all four children in need of aid on grounds of sexual abuse and neglect. The court noted that the father had invoked his right to remain silent, and it drew a negative inference from his silence, concluding that sexual contact had occurred. The court also found that the children were at substantial risk of being sexually abused because the mother failed to stop the father's conduct and continued to support him. The court issued a temporary custody and adjudication order, and later granted the State's petition for release of the children from state custody.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's adjudication order. The court held that the superior court did not clearly err in making its factual findings and that it was permissible to draw an adverse inference from the father's refusal to testify. The court concluded that the father's conduct could not be reasonably construed as normal caretaking, interaction, or affection, and thus, the children were in need of aid due to sexual abuse. The court did not address other arguments raised by the father, as the adjudication of one child in need of aid was sufficient to sustain the order. View "Brad S. v. State" on Justia Law

A grandmother petitioned for guardianship of her adult granddaughter, who had developmental disabilities and other health issues. In 2012, the Superior Court of Alaska found the granddaughter incapacitated and appointed the grandmother as her guardian. However, the guardianship was terminated in 2014 after the grandmother failed to submit a required report. From 2014 to 2022, the grandmother and the granddaughter’s sister provided informal care. In 2022, Adult Protective Services (APS) and medical providers raised concerns about the granddaughter’s care, leading APS to file a new petition for guardianship.The Superior Court of Alaska initially appointed a temporary guardian and later granted APS’s petition for full guardianship without a new finding of incapacity, relying on the 2012 determination. The granddaughter requested a jury trial on the issue of her capacity, but the court denied this request, applying the doctrine of issue preclusion, which prevents relitigation of issues already decided.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and found that the Superior Court erred in applying issue preclusion to the granddaughter’s capacity. The court noted that capacity can change over time and that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the facts regarding the granddaughter’s capacity were the same in 2012 and 2022. The court emphasized that APS, as the petitioner, had the burden of proving the granddaughter’s current incapacity. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s order appointing a permanent guardian and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the granddaughter’s capacity. View "In re Protective Proceeding of S.J." on Justia Law

A woman and a man were married in July 2003 and separated in March 2022. Before their marriage, the woman had an employer-provided deferred compensation plan with a balance between $63,131.23 and $67,536.80. During the marriage, she continued contributing to the plan until 2006. She made significant withdrawals from the account for marital expenses, including $40,000 in 2009 and $75,000 in 2016. In 2018, the remaining funds were transferred to a USAA account and then to a Charles Schwab IRA account in 2020, which was valued at $102,100.55 at the time of trial. The parties disputed whether these funds were marital or nonmarital.The parties engaged in mediation in March 2022 and appeared before the superior court to memorialize their agreement. The court noted that the parties had agreed to allocate the assets and debts of the marriage with one exception related to the disputed account. The woman was to provide additional information to confirm that the marital portion of the account had already been spent. However, the parties had conflicting interpretations of this proviso, leading to further disputes.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court found that the superior court had erred in its legal conclusions. It ruled that the use of some funds for marital expenditures did not demonstrate an intent to donate the entire account to the marriage. Additionally, the court held that when a mixed account contains both premarital and marital funds, the default rule is "first in, last out," meaning premarital funds are not withdrawn until all marital funds have been exhausted. The court vacated the superior court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the respective separate and marital portions of the account. View "Rush v. Rush" on Justia Law

A man and woman who had been in a long-term domestic partnership ended their relationship and sought a distribution of partnership assets. Each initially disputed whether certain property items were part of the domestic partnership estate or owned separately by one of the parties. After prompting by the court, the parties stipulated to the value of many items and that the man would receive them. However, the stipulation did not clearly address whether those items were included in the partnership estate, and the court did not receive evidence to indicate whether or not the property items belonged to the man or the partnership. The court nonetheless treated the items as partnership property and awarded the items as the parties had agreed, resulting in a substantial equalization payment owed by the man to the woman. The man appeals, asserting that two items of property were his separate property, not property of the partnership.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, initially reviewed the case. The court scheduled a two-day trial, which was later reduced to one day. During the trial, the parties discussed a property spreadsheet listing various items, their values, and proposed distributions. The court asked the man if he had reviewed the spreadsheet and if he agreed with its contents, to which he responded affirmatively. The court then proceeded to review each property item, noting changes on the spreadsheet and confirming agreements on valuations and assignments. The court ultimately concluded that all assets on the spreadsheet were partnership assets and available for distribution, resulting in an equalization payment owed by the man to the woman.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court found that the record did not support the conclusion that the man stipulated that the two disputed items were partnership property. The court noted that the property spreadsheets and the record did not reflect an agreement by the man that the items were part of the partnership estate. The court vacated the Superior Court's property distribution order and remanded for further proceedings to allow the parties to present evidence regarding the proper characterization of the disputed property items. View "Gallagher v. Majors" on Justia Law

A mother sought to regain custody of her children, who had been living with their uncle and aunt in Canada for two years. The uncle and aunt opposed the return, arguing it was in the children's best interests to stay with them. Concurrent custody proceedings took place in Alaska and Canada, with Alaska ultimately asserting jurisdiction. After a custody trial, the uncle and aunt were awarded physical and legal custody of the children. The mother appealed, claiming the court made several legal and factual errors.The Alaska Superior Court found that it had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and consolidated the cases. During the trial, the court heard testimony from multiple witnesses, including the mother, the uncle, the aunt, and experts. The court found that the children were thriving in Canada and that returning them to their mother would be detrimental due to her erratic behavior and substance use. The court also conducted in camera interviews with the children, who expressed a preference to stay with their uncle and aunt.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to the uncle and aunt, finding that the children's welfare required it. The court also found that the Superior Court correctly applied the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements, determining that the placement constituted a "foster care placement" and that active efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The court concluded that the expert witnesses were properly qualified and that the evidence supported the finding that returning the children to their mother would likely cause serious emotional damage. The custody and visitation orders were upheld as not being an abuse of discretion. View "O'Brien v. Delaplain" on Justia Law

Gregory Numann and Diane Gallant were married in 2002 and separated in October 2016. They verbally agreed to maintain separate residences, with Numann paying child support and both contributing to their child's college fund. Numann served in the military from 1989 to 2015, accruing a pension worth about $730,000 at separation. Gallant, who worked throughout the marriage, had two retirement accounts worth about $30,000. Gallant filed for divorce in 2021, seeking a portion of Numann’s military retirement benefit.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, held a two-day trial and issued a divorce decree in July 2022. The court awarded Gallant 50% of the marital portion of Numann’s military retirement benefit from the date of separation. It also credited Numann for child support payments made after their child reached the age of majority. The court found that Gallant was entitled to a portion of the retirement benefit starting from the date of separation and ordered Numann to pay Gallant $94,248.70, representing her share of the retirement payments received since separation. The court balanced this against other obligations to avoid prolonged financial entanglement.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that the division of the military retirement benefit from the date of separation did not violate federal law under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA). The court clarified that the USFSPA allows state courts to treat military retirement pay as marital property subject to division under state law. The court also found no evidence of judicial bias against Numann. However, the court remanded the case to correct an inconsistency in the final written order regarding the division of the military retirement benefit. View "Numann v. Gallant" on Justia Law

Evan D., an Indian child, was born with significant health complications. Shortly after his birth, the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) filed an emergency petition to adjudicate him a child in need of aid due to his parents' history of neglect, substance abuse, and domestic violence. Evan was placed with foster parents Rosalind and Max M., who lived near a medical facility capable of addressing his health needs. The Native Village of Togiak, Evan’s tribe, was informed of the proceedings and later petitioned to transfer jurisdiction over Evan’s case to the tribal court.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, adjudicated Evan a child in need of aid and granted temporary custody to OCS. OCS petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Evan’s parents, and the Tribe petitioned to transfer jurisdiction. Rosalind and Max moved to intervene, arguing that the Tribe might place Evan with his grandmother, who they believed could not meet his health needs. The Superior Court denied their motion, stating that federal law prohibits considering potential placement changes when deciding whether to transfer jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court held that the foster parents' arguments against transferring jurisdiction were contrary to federal law, which prohibits considering whether transfer could affect the child's placement. The court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, stating that the foster parents did not present valid grounds to deny the transfer of jurisdiction and therefore did not share any issue of law or fact in common with the underlying proceedings that would justify their intervention. The court also addressed the procedure for staying transfer orders pending appeal, emphasizing the need to balance competing interests. View "Rosalind M. v. State" on Justia Law