Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Aaron Steiner began a romantic relationship with Juanita Omadlao in May 2013, while Omadlao was still married to David Coulson. Coulson learned about the affair and filed for divorce. After the divorce proceedings ended, Coulson sued Steiner, claiming alienation of affections, fraud and civil conspiracy, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The superior court granted Steiner summary judgment on all three of Coulson’s claims. The court concluded that Alaska does not recognize a tort for alienation of affections and that Coulson’s remaining claims were derivative of Coulson’s alienation of affections claim and likewise barred by Alaska law. The Supreme Court agreed that Steiner was entitled to summary judgment on the alienation of affections claim based on our prior case law. But the Court concluded Steiner was not entitled to summary judgment on Coulson’s other claims because those claims were based, at least in part, on Steiner’s conduct during the divorce proceedings, not on his role in causing Coulson’s divorce. View "Coulson v. Steiner" on Justia Law

Shanda Horning was eligible for healthcare from the Indian Health Service (IHS) because she was an Alaska Native. Donovan Horning had unvested post-retirement healthcare benefits through the military’s TRICARE program. When the superior court divided the marital estate after the couple’s divorce trial, it did not classify, value, or distribute either party’s healthcare, finding instead that each had “an equal benefit that [was] in essence a wash for the purpose of dividing the marital estate.” Shanda appealed, arguing her eligibility for IHS healthcare was separate property, that Donovan’s TRICARE benefit was marital property, and that it was therefore error for the superior court to use her separate property to offset Donovan’s marital property. After review, the Alaska Supreme Court agreed, vacated the superior court’s property distribution order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Horning v. Horning" on Justia Law

Alex H., a prisoner, challenged the superior court’s denial of his request for transport to attend in person his parental rights termination trial, and, therefore, the ultimate termination of his parental rights. He argued that when denying his transport request the superior court: (1) abused its discretion by concluding in its statutory analysis that transport was not required; (2) abused its discretion or erred by failing to consider all required factors for the statutory analysis; and (3) separately violated his due process rights by denying him in-person attendance at the parental rights termination trial. Because the superior court considered all relevant factors the parties presented to it, because it was not obvious that considering additional factors would have changed the court’s statutory analysis, and because the prisoner’s due process rights were not violated, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s transport decision and ultimate termination of the prisoner’s parental rights. View "Alex H. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

A woman's premarital student loan was consolidated with other student loans incurred during marriage. Her husband argued at the couple's divorce trial that he should not be responsible for the consolidated loans because they contained the premarital debt and because his wife had wasted loan proceeds by gambling. The superior court, however, held the parties equally responsible for the loans, finding that it was impossible to extricate the premarital loan from the consolidated loans and that the amounts were all marital debt primarily used to support the family while the wife attended school. It further found that the husband had failed to prove a waste of marital assets. The husband argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that these findings were erroneous and that the superior court was biased against him. Concluding that the court's findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no merit to the bias allegation, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wagner v. Wagner" on Justia Law

A mother appealed an order reducing the amount of child support the father was required to pay. She argued that the superior court relied on incorrect income calculations from the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) and that it erred in finding a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction in child support. She also argued that the court should have required the father to submit an income affidavit, and that its failure to do so improperly shifted to her the burden of proving the father’s income. After its review, the Supreme Court agreed that CSSD's income calculations were incorrect, that it was error for the court to adopt them, and that the father should have been required to submit an income affidavit. View "Shanigan v. Shanigan" on Justia Law

A mother and her eight children were routinely severely abused by the father of the younger children while living in another state. The mother fled to Alaska with four of her daughters in 2013. After the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) obtained temporary custody of the children, the mother resisted OCS’s efforts to reunify the family and refused to participate in supervised visits with her daughters. She left Alaska in October 2014, maintaining only sporadic contact with her daughters, and she had not returned. The superior court terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights with respect to two of the younger daughters, finding that: the children were in need of aid due to abandonment and other statutory factors; that the parents had not remedied the conduct that made the children in need of aid; that OCS had made reasonable efforts toward reunification; and that termination was in the daughters’ best interests. The mother appealed the termination of her parental rights but did not appeal the superior court’s finding that her children were initially in need of aid. Finding that the superior court's judgment was amply supported by the record, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed. View "Joy B. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Soc. Svcs." on Justia Law

The superior court granted sole legal and primary physical custody of a child to her grandparents, after a trial at which the court found by clear and convincing evidence that leaving the child in her mother’s custody would be clearly detrimental to the child’s welfare. Nine months later, the mother moved to modify custody, attesting by affidavit that she had improved her life in a number of ways and had accomplished goals the court had set for her. She also argued that the court’s grant of custody following trial had been only temporary, and she was thus entitled to a biological-parent preference and the court could modify custody without proof of a substantial change in circumstances. The court denied her motion without a hearing, holding both that its custody decree was intended to be final and that the mother failed to show the substantial change in circumstances necessary to entitle her to an evidentiary hearing. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the superior court’s holdings, and therefore affirmed its denial of the mother’s modification motion without a hearing. View "Abby D. v. Sue Y." on Justia Law

The superior court modified a child custody decree, granting sole legal custody and primary physical custody to the child’s father and setting a visitation schedule. The mother picked the child up for summer visitation but did not share her travel plans with the father and did not answer the phone or otherwise respond when the father called for telephonic visitation with the child. After five days with no word from the mother or the child, the father filed a motion to show cause. The court ordered the mother to place the child on the phone at the scheduled telephonic visitation times, to keep the father informed of the child’s address and travel dates, and to give the child a telephone provided by the father to facilitate their telephonic visitation. The mother appealed, arguing that the custody decree did not give the father any telephonic visitation rights and that the court impermissibly modified the decree. She also argued that she did not receive adequate notice of the father’s motion. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court’s orders were within its inherent power to interpret and enforce the custody decree and that the mother received adequate notice of the father’s motion. View "del Rosario v. Clare" on Justia Law

A mother and father shared joint legal and physical custody of their daughter. The mother moved for sole legal and primary physical custody, alleging that a sustained lack of cooperation between the parents and other changes in their lives justified the modification of custody she requested. She moved in the alternative for a modification of the custody schedule. The superior court found there was no substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification of custody and awarded partial attorney’s fees to the father. The father appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed these decisions. The case was remanded nevertheless for the superior court to consider whether the mother’s proposed modification of the new custody schedule would have been in the daughter’s best interests. View "Collier v. Harris" on Justia Law

This appeal involved two petitions for long-term domestic violence protective orders. Olivia Lee-Magana prevailed both on a petition she brought against her ex-boyfriend Jacob Carpenter and on a petition he brought against her. She moved for attorney’s fees in both cases, but the trial court denied her motions at first and again on reconsideration. Lee-Magana appealed, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding her full attorney’s fees on both petitions : on hers because she was the prevailing petitioner in a domestic violence case for whom fees are allowed by statute, and on her ex-boyfriend’s because she was the prevailing party and his petition was vexatious. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of attorney’s fees for Lee-Magana's successful defense against her ex-boyfriend’s petition. As for the court’s denial of attorney’s fees to Lee-Magana as the prevailing petitioner, the Court concluded there was no adequate reason for denying fees and therefore reversed and remanded for an award of fees in an appropriate amount. View "Lee-Magana v. Carpenter" on Justia Law