Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A father opposed the petition of his child's foster parent for guardianship. The child, a member of his mother's tribe, had been in the foster parent's care for about two years. The Office of Children's Services (OCS) took custody of the child in 2019 due to domestic violence and drug abuse in the mother's home. The father, living in Arizona at the time, was contacted by OCS after the child was taken into custody. OCS attempted to place the child with the father, but an Arizona home study recommended against it. The child was placed with the foster parent, a relative and tribal member.The superior court granted the foster parent's guardianship petition after an evidentiary hearing, finding it in the child's best interests and that returning the child to the father would likely result in serious emotional damage. The father appealed, arguing that the guardianship was a de facto termination of parental rights and required additional findings and procedural steps.The Alaska Supreme Court remanded the case to the superior court to address whether OCS had made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). On remand, the superior court made additional findings on the existing record and reaffirmed the guardianship order.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the superior court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion. The court held that the superior court made the necessary findings under ICWA, including that OCS had made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family and that guardianship was in the child's best interests. The court also clarified that guardianship proceedings do not require the termination of parental rights and can proceed independently of a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceeding. The order appointing the guardian was affirmed. View "In re Protective Proceedings of Macon J." on Justia Law

A husband and wife divorced after 19 years of marriage, with six children, including four adopted minors. The wife, a nurse practitioner, challenged the superior court's division of marital assets, particularly the valuation of the husband's law practice, which the court found lacked marketable goodwill. She also disputed the treatment of a $75,000 payout as a pre-distribution rather than interim support and the offsetting of adoption subsidies against the husband's child support obligation.The superior court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, held a four-day custody trial and a five-day property trial. The court awarded 50/50 shared physical custody and divided the marital estate 60/40 in favor of the wife. The court valued the husband's law firm based on its net assets, excluding goodwill, and found the Wasilla office building was not a marital asset. The court also calculated the husband's child support obligation but reduced it to account for the adoption subsidies received by the wife.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. It affirmed the superior court's decision, holding that only marketable goodwill may be divided on divorce, and the evidence showed the law firm lacked such goodwill. The court found no error in the superior court's other decisions, including the pre-distribution in lieu of interim spousal support and the temporary adjustment of the child support obligation. The court also upheld the superior court's valuation of the law firm, the classification of the Wasilla office building, and the finding that the law firm had no excess cash. The Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award interim spousal support, in its treatment of post-separation earnings, or in its decision not to award long-term spousal support, above-guidelines child support, or additional attorney's fees. The property division, including the award of the marital home to the husband, was found to be equitable. View "May v. Petersen" on Justia Law

Robert Wills and Aniela Humphries, who share three children, divorced in January 2012. They initially shared physical custody on a 2/3-1/3 basis, switching to a 50-50 arrangement in January 2013. In November 2020, Wills refused to return their middle child to Humphries, prompting her to file a motion to enforce the custody agreement. The court found Wills had disobeyed the custody order and undermined the child's relationship with Humphries. It ordered a gradual transition back to 50-50 custody.Humphries sought attorney’s fees for enforcing the custody order, and the court awarded her $21,000, considering the parties' financial circumstances and the importance of the issues. Despite the court's order, Wills moved to South Carolina with the middle child and later sought to modify custody. The court granted him primary physical custody and modified child support, requiring Humphries to pay $1,070.89 monthly.Humphries requested an offset of the child support she owed against the attorney’s fees Wills owed her. The court granted the offset, finding that manifest injustice would result if Humphries had to pay child support while Wills owed her a substantial sum. The court determined that Wills still owed $15,641.09 in attorney’s fees and ordered Humphries to begin paying child support in March 2024.The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order, holding that the superior court has discretion to order an offset against child support if good cause exists and the offset is in the children’s best interests. The court found that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that manifest injustice would result without the offset and that the offset was in the children’s best interests. View "Wills v. Humphries" on Justia Law

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