Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A superior court ordered the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) to audit the child support and spousal support accounts of a divorced couple. The audits revealed that the agency had collected too much child support from the ex-wife and that the ex-husband owed her the overpayment as well as arrearages in spousal support. The ex-wife’s attorney filed an attorney’s lien on money in the ex-husband’s possession that the attorney claimed was owed to his client, then filed a separate action to enforce the lien. The ex-husband paid the money to CSSD, which turned it over to the ex-wife.The superior court granted summary judgment to the ex-husband on the attorney’s lien claim, concluding that the lien was invalid because the ex-husband was required to pay the money for the overpayment and the spousal support arrearages directly to CSSD. The attorney appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the attorney’s lien satisfied the requirements of the governing statute, AS 34.35.430(a)(3). Therefore the Court reversed the superior court’s summary judgment order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Law Offices of Steven D. Smith, P.C. v. Ceccarelli" on Justia Law

Jasmine was born in February 2009 to Clementine and Jermaine. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of the child after receiving reports that her mother’s conduct had placed her at risk of harm. OCS then investigated the child’s father, who lived out of state, and determined that the child would be safe in his care. At the temporary custody hearing, the superior court granted Jermaine's motion to dismiss the case and ordered the child released from OCS custody. Clementine appealed, arguing that the court should have granted her request for a continuance and held an evidentiary hearing on the father’s conduct and that the court erred by dismissing the petition without first making findings on the allegations it contained. The Supreme Court concluded that the mother had no right to an evidentiary hearing on the father’s conduct and that the superior court did not err by dismissing the petition when OCS declined to pursue it. View "Clementine F. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

A husband and wife separated after the husband was charged with sexually abusing their minor daughter. The husband eventually pleaded guilty to first degree indecent exposure. In the civil divorce suit, the superior court took judicial notice of the conviction, concluded that the husband’s sexual offense was the cause of his current financial woes and was therefore a form of economic misconduct, and divided the marital property 70-30 in the wife’s favor. The court also concluded that the wife had not wasted or otherwise misused marital funds she had withdrawn between separation and trial and accordingly declined to recapture those funds in the property division. The husband appeals, claiming the superior court should not have considered his criminal offense and by doing so demonstrated bias against him. The husband also contended the superior court abused its discretion by favoring the wife in the property division and that his due process rights were violated. Finding that the superior court erred by treating the wife's attorney's fees as marital expenses, failing to address the husband's request for fees, and by adjusting the property division to account for expenses the husband was separately obligated to pay.The Supreme Court remanded this case for further proceedings, but affirmed in all other respects. View "Jerry B. v. Sally B." on Justia Law

The parties to this appeal reached a settlement in their divorce, providing that the qualified marital portion of the husband’s pension would be distributed to the wife and the nonqualified portion would be distributed to the husband, subject to a provision for equitable reallocation if the values of those portions changed significantly. The settlement also described four firearms and ammunition that the husband would deliver to the wife. After the decree issued, the wife’s portion of the pension declined in value and the husband’s portion increased, so the wife filed motions attempting to obtain information about the reasons for this change in value and attempting to enforce the settlement agreement’s equitable reallocation provision to compensate for the changes. She also argued that the husband had not delivered the guns. The superior court ruled for the husband in all respects, and it awarded enhanced attorney’s fees against the wife. The wife appealed. After review, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the significant change in the relative values of the parties’ pension accounts triggered the verification and reallocation provision of their settlement agreement. Accordingly, the superior court’s denial of the wife’s motion for an equitable reallocation was reversed and the case remanded for an equitable reallocation according to the parties’ agreement. Because the husband was no longer the prevailing party, the Court also vacated the superior court’s award of attorney’s fees to the husband. The Court affirmed the superior court’s decision as to the issue over the guns. View "Herring v. Herring" on Justia Law

The superior court in this case divided the marital property, granted child custody and determined the child support obligation. On appeal of that order, the noncustodial, nonresident parent claimed the superior court lacked jurisdiction, the orders were substantively incorrect, and the court appeared to be biased against him. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the record contained no evidence of bias and that the court did not err in entering the marital property and child custody orders. But in calculating the father’s child support obligation, the court assumed that Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 imposed an income ceiling of $110,000 - $10,000 below the statutory level. Because the father’s income appeared to exceed $120,000, the Supreme Court deduced this assumption likely rendered the support order too low. Accordingly the Court remanded the support order for reconsideration. View "Sherrill v. Sherrill" on Justia Law

Timothy G. alleged he was abused by his stepfather repeatedly between 1997 and 2006. In 2006, Timothy reported the abuse to his mother. She took Timothy and his four siblings to a shelter, sought a protective order against the stepfather, and instituted divorce proceedings. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) then substantiated the report of harm, removed the children from their mother’s care, and placed them in foster care. In 2012, Timothy filed a complaint naming OCS and his stepfather as defendants. He sought compensatory damages from OCS, claiming that “[a]s a direct and proximate consequence of [OCS’s] breach of [its] dut[y] of care, [he] suffered physical injury, psychological and emotional injury and distress, psychological torment, torture and sexual abuse, pain and suffering, and resultant loss of earning capacity.” Timothy alleged that OCS had investigated at least ten reports of harm involving him and his siblings, but had taken no action. In response to OCS' motion to dismiss, Timothy G. asserted that the statute of limitations had been tolled on his claim because he was mentally incompetent following those years of abuse. The superior court held an evidentiary hearing on this issue and concluded that Timothy had failed to prove that he was incompetent. On appeal, Timothy argued that the superior court should have ruled in his favor if he produced more than a scintilla of evidence to support his assertion. But the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court applied the proper burden of proof and the proper test for competency, and that the court did not clearly err in finding that Timothy did not prove his incompetence. View "Timothy G. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

After the parties to this action divorced, they shared physical and legal custody of their only child. In 2013 the mother filed a motion to modify custody requesting primary physical custody to move with the child from Fairbanks to Anchorage, and the superior court granted her primary physical custody for as long as the parties resided in different communities. The court also made findings regarding the father’s abusive communication style. The father moved to Anchorage soon after the mother, and the parties began sharing physical custody again. After an incident where the father brought the police to the mother’s residence because she had declined to give him visitation time outside the custody order, the mother again moved to modify custody. Following a three-day hearing, the court found that there was a change in circumstances and modified legal custody by giving the mother the right to make all major parenting decisions. But it declined to give the mother primary physical custody because it found that doing so would be devastating to the child and would increase the friction between the parents. The mother appealed, arguing the superior court misapplied the best interest factors. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order. View "Sweeney v. Organ" on Justia Law

A federally recognized Alaska Native tribe adopted a process for adjudicating the child support obligations of parents whose children are members of the tribe or are eligible for membership, and it operated a federally funded child support enforcement agency. The Tribe sued the State and won a declaratory judgment that its tribal court system had subject matter jurisdiction over child support matters and an injunction requiring the State’s child support enforcement agency to recognize the tribal courts’ child support orders in the same way it recognized such orders from other states. Because the Supreme Court agreed that tribal courts had inherent subject matter jurisdiction to decide the child support obligations owed to children who are tribal members or were eligible for membership, and that state law thus required the State’s child support enforcement agency to recognize and enforce a tribal court’s child support orders, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Alaska v. Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of August 29, 2013, Palmer police officer James Gipson noticed Moira M. walking alone along the road. After Moira declined Gipson’s offer of a ride, Gipson continued driving until he noticed a car parked in a gravel lot. Gipson approached the car, discovered it was unlocked, and found an unattended infant in the back seat. While Gipson was waiting for backup assistance, Moira entered the lot and identified the car as belonging to her and the infant as her child. Gipson noticed signs of impairment in Moira’s behavior and notified another officer to contact Moira while Gipson remained with the infant. Moira was taken into custody, and while in custody she admitted to using cannabis, asserted that she had used methamphetamine for the first time the night before, and admitted that she had driven with the infant, Abel, after using these drugs. Moira was ultimately charged with endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, driving on a suspended license, driving under the influence, and misconduct involving a controlled substance. After taking Moira into custody, the police released Abel into the custody of Moira's boyfriend Jarvis’s mother. Based on this incident, the police sent OCS a protective services report regarding Abel, and The Office of Children's Services (OCS) immediately began an investigation. Abel was ultimately placed in a foster home with a non-relative, and eventually proceedings commenced against Moira to terminate her parental rights. The superior court terminated Moira's rights based on evidence that she failed to remedy her substance abuse and the danger this conduct posed to her child. On appeal Moira argued: (1) the superior court erred when, prior to the termination trial, it denied her request for a visitation review hearing; and (2) at the termination trial, the superior court erroneously reduced OCS's burden to make reasonable reunification efforts after she moved out of state. But the record and Alaska case law supported the superior court’s decisions. The superior court denied the visitation review hearing because OCS responded to the mother’s motion for a hearing by issuing a family contact plan that appeared to fully address her concerns. And the superior court’s analysis of OCS’s efforts properly considered the specific facts of her case. Accordingly the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision to terminate parental rights. View "Moira M. v. Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

A mother and father divorced, and the final decree granted them joint physical custody of their two minor children. Three years later, at age 47, the father quit his job, moved from Alaska to retire in Arizona, and withdrew significant funds from his retirement account. The mother moved for a modification of child support based on these changed circumstances. This appeal presented to the Supreme Court the question whether the superior court ordered the proper amount of child support in resolving a motion to modify support. The mother argued that the withdrawn retirement funds should have been included in the father’s income and that he could afford to pay more child support based on his earning potential. The superior court ordered that the withdrawn retirement funds be included in the father’s income for determining child support for a one-year period, effective from the date of the mother’s motion. The father appealed, arguing that he could not be required to pay child support based on his income from the previous year. The mother challenged this contention and continued to argue that the court should have imputed income to the father based on his earning potential. Because the father’s significant increase in income from his retirement account withdrawal justifies a corresponding increase in his child support obligation, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the superior court’s approach of ordering a year’s worth of child support based on this year of increased income was not error. But because the superior court failed to consider the imputed income claim that the mother plainly raised in her motion, the Court remanded for further consideration of that question. View "Mitchell v. Mitchell" on Justia Law