Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The parties in this case divorced. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the nature of the parties' marital interest in a limited liability company. They eventually agreed that the husband would retain the ownership interest but the wife would receive 25% “of the net commission” from certain sales if they occurred within a limited time after the divorce. When a sale occurred, the parties disagreed on how to define “net commission”: the wife contended that it meant the commission received by the company, but the husband contended that it meant only his share of it. The wife sought discovery in support of her interpretation of the agreement. The husband moved for a protective order, and the parties’ attorneys compromised on some limited production. Although the husband produced information that appeared to satisfy the compromise, the wife filed a motion to compel. The court granted the motion to compel and awarded the wife attorney’s fees for having had to file it. Then, following an evidentiary hearing, the superior court agreed with the wife’s interpretation of the settlement agreement. The husband appealed both the decision on the merits and the award of attorney’s fees on the motion to compel. Because the language of the agreement and relevant extrinsic evidence favored the wife’s interpretation of “net commission,” the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision of that issue. But because the Court could not find the rationale for the superior court’s award of attorney’s fees to the wife on her motion to compel, it remanded that issue to the superior court for reconsideration. View "Gunn v. Gunn" on Justia Law

The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) filed a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights to two of her daughters. The superior court granted the petition. The mother appealed the superior court’s finding that OCS made active efforts to reunify the family, as required by state and federal law, as well as a few of the factual findings underlying this conclusion. Because the superior court did not clearly err in finding that OCS made active efforts by providing services geared toward reunification the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the termination decision. View "Denny M. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A non-custodial parent moved to modify a child support order after she quit her job in Anchorage, moved to a remote village, and adopted a subsistence lifestyle. Although the parent acknowledged that she was voluntarily unemployed, she argued that her decision was reasonable in light of her cultural, spiritual, and religious needs. The superior court disagreed and denied the motion. The parent appealed, arguing that the superior court gave inadequate weight to her cultural and religious needs and that the child support order violated her right to the free exercise of her religion. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the superior court adequately considered all relevant factors in deciding not to modify the child support order. "And there was no plain error in the court’s failure to anticipate the free exercise claim, which the parent raises for the first time on appeal." View "Sharpe v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

Dea and James Dundas married in 1997 after a lengthy relationship. Dea raised their two sons, operated a B&B, kept the books for their businesses, and filed their taxes. Dea also was an expediter for James' fishing and construction businesses, purchasing and delivering supplies to job sites and to James' boat. According to Dea, James is one of the best heavy equipment operators in the area, and James acknowledged that Dea’s hard work was a substantial reason for their financial success. Through their industry and skill, James and Dea acquired roughly $1.7 million in marital assets. In January 2011 Dea filed for divorce, and James moved out of the marital home later that year. The divorce was not finalized for nearly three-and-a-half years. In the interim the couple continued to treat certain bank accounts as marital and others as separate, making it difficult for the superior court to later determine when the joint marital enterprise ended and how to value the bank accounts. The issues on appeal in this matter revealed issues under each step of the equitable distribution process (identification, valuation, and distribution) as well as issues of alimony, child visitation expenses, and child support credits. The Supreme Court remanded this case back to the trial court for resolution of issues regarding these steps. View "Dundas v. Dundas" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a custody dispute between Susan M. and Paul H. involving: (1) Susan’s motion to sanction Paul for wrongfully denying her visitation; and (2) her motion to enjoin Paul from relocating to California with the children after the 2013-14 school year, a move the superior court previously approved. The superior court denied both motions, and Susan appealed. Though the Supreme Court affirmed, the Court warned that a parent’s unilateral suspension of the other parent’s visitation based on perceived violations of a custody agreement were improper in all but exceptional circumstances. "Even where such circumstances exist, the concerned parent should immediately inform the court of the problem." View "Susan M. v. Paul H." on Justia Law

Rowan B., Sr.(father) and Risa F. were the divorced parents of three children: Agnes, Rowan Jr. (Junior), and Saul. After Rowan and Risa divorced, Rowan received custody of their three children as well as custody of Risa’s two older daughters, Aeryn and Reagan. In 2012 Aeryn reported to the police and the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) that she and Reagan had been physically and sexually abused by Rowan over an extended time period. Aeryn also expressed her concern that Rowan was sexually abusing Agnes. OCS filed an emergency custody petition and removed the minor children (Agnes, Junior, and Saul) in June 2012. The children were adjudicated children in need of aid based on findings that the father had sexually and physically abused his daughters. In a criminal proceeding the father was convicted on 29 counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and one count of incest. The father sought a delay of the termination proceedings pending appeal of his criminal convictions, but the superior court denied this request. Rowan appealed the ultimate outcome: termination of his parental rights to his three biological children. He argued that the superior court abused its discretion by denying a continued. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the children’s interest in permanency weighed heavily against delaying the termination proceedings for years while the father pursues his criminal appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rowan B. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Svcs." on Justia Law

Tammy Wells and Primo Barile married in 1995 and divorced in 2004. They had a son, born in 1997. Tammy married Lance Wells after her divorce from Primo and had two children with Lance. Tammy and Primo shared physical custody of their son on a “50/50 basis” pursuant to an order entered in January 2009. Neither parent was required to pay child support to the other. The 2009 order required Tammy to apply for their son’s Permanent Fund Dividends (PFDs) but divided them equally with Primo. The order also required the parents to keep their son on their health insurance as long as it was available at reasonable cost through their employers, and to share the cost of any reasonable health care expenses not covered by insurance, up to a maximum of $5,000 annually. Tammy appealed a superior court’s grant of a motion to modify child custody filed by Primo. Tammy also challenged the court’s child support order, its order that she reimburse Primo for half their child’s Permanent Fund Dividends (PFDs), and a writ of assistance the court issued for the custody order’s enforcement. She also alleged that several of the superior court’s rulings showed judicial bias and a failure to give her the leniency appropriate to her status as a pro se litigant. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court abused its discretion when it ordered Tammy to reimburse Primo for the PFDs without taking into account, as an offset, the amounts that Primo may have owed Tammy for medical care. The Court reversed the judgment on this issue and remanded for further proceedings. On all other issues, the Court found no error and affirmed. View "Wells v. Barile" on Justia Law

Ed and Kristina B. had one son before they separated. The superior court heard evidence about domestic violence on Ed’s part and Kristina’s medical and substance-abuse issues. The court granted sole legal and primary physical custody of the child to Ed. Kristina appealed many of the court’s findings of fact and legal rulings. Upon review, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the superior court for reconsideration of: (1) whether Kristina’s child support obligation should be reduced to reflect the significant cost of her court-ordered urinalysis testing; and (2) whether the restrictive visitation schedule was justified once Kristina has demonstrated a history of sobriety. The Court affirmed with respect to all other issues. View "Kristina B. v. Edward B." on Justia Law

Two sisters reported that they were abused by their grandparents while they were entrusted to the legal custody of the Office of Children’s Services (OCS). The sisters sued OCS, and a jury awarded them substantial damages, concluding that OCS was responsible for 95% of their damages and that their grandparents were not responsible for any of their damages. On appeal, OCS argued that the verdict should have been set aside. Because the evidence supporting the jury’s allocation of fault was so insubstantial as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that OCS was entitled to a new trial. View "State, Dept. of Health & Social Services v. Mullins" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a father’s motion to modify the custody arrangement of the parties’ two children. The superior court awarded primary physical and sole legal custody to the father after hearing testimony from a custody investigator and both parties. The mother appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion because it modified the custody order based on evidence that existed when the court denied another motion to modify custody five years earlier. But because there was new evidence of substance abuse and untreated mental health issues, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err by concluding there was a material change in circumstances and, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, did not abuse its discretion by awarding primary physical and sole legal custody to the father. View "Frackman v. Enzor" on Justia Law