Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The father appealed the court’s determination of his child support obligations, its factual findings regarding child custody and visitation, its valuation and division of the marital estate, its denial of attorney’s fees, and its denial of a continuance. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed on all issues. View "Limeres v. Limeres" on Justia Law

In January 2011, the Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of three children. The children had been in the care of their maternal grandparents, but before their removal had returned to their parents. OCS, under the impression that the children were being cared for by the parents at the time of removal, placed the children with the maternal grandparents. The day the trial to terminate the mother’s parental rights was to begin, the mother moved to have the grandmother joined in the proceeding as the children’s Indian custodian. The court denied both the mother’s motion to join the grandmother and the grandmother’s motion to intervene, finding that shortly after the removal the parents revoked the grandmother’s Indian custodian status by asking OCS not to place the children with her. The grandmother moved for reconsideration and argued that her due process rights were violated at the time of the removal. She argued that OCS did not provide her with notice of the right she was entitled to as the children’s Indian custodian, including notice of her right to intervene in the proceeding and of her right to be represented by counsel. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that although OCS breached its duty to provide the grandmother with notice required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), because of the short time between the children’s removal and the parents’ revocation of the grandmother’s status as the children’s Indian custodian the grandmother had suffered no significant detriment to her rights. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that any error OCS may have made regarding the notice provisions of ICWA was harmless. View "Molly O. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

Two parents shared joint custody of their child during the pendency of their divorce, but the father's plans to move out of state led both parents to seek primary physical custody of the child. The superior court granted primary physical custody to the mother, concluding that all of the statutory factors but one were neutral between the parents but that the mother was more likely than the father to facilitate a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child. The father then appealed, arguing that the superior court erred: (1) by failing to find that the father had superior capability to meet the child's needs; and (2) by prompting the father to discuss his concerns about the mother's parenting and then holding those concerns against the father in the continuing-relationship determination. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed that court's determinations in all respects. View "James R. v. Kylie R." on Justia Law

Simone H. appealed the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her son, Irving. Simone challenged the trial court's denial of her request to have Irving's therapy records released to her for use during the termination trial and the trial court's finding that the Office of Children's Services (OCS) made reasonable efforts to provide services designed to enable Irving's safe return to her custody. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Simone's request for access to Irving's therapy records and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify Simone with Irving. View "Simone H. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

Maxwell V. sued for custody of Terrance, the son he had with Stephanie W. The superior court granted him primary physical custody and joint legal custody. The Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed the first custody order in most respects, but remanded on two custody factors. On remand, the superior court again granted Maxwell primary physical custody. Stephanie appealed the second custody order. Two of her arguments, relating to discovery, were not preserved for appeal, were forfeited, and did not constitute plain error. The Supreme Court concluded Stephanie's third argument failed on the merits. She also challenged the superior court’s determination of two custody factors in light of the Supreme Court's remand instructions in first custody proceeding, arguing that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to consider Maxwell’s child support arrears in its stability determination, and that the superior court abused its discretion by holding against her, in the continuing-relationship determination, her allegations that Maxwell was manufacturing methamphetamine with Terrance present. The Supreme Court rejected Stephanie's additional arguments and affirmed the superior court's order in all respects. View "Stephanie W. v. Maxwell V." on Justia Law

Adam Sagers appealed a superior court's award of physical and legal custody of his minor son to the boy's mother, Colleen Sackinger. Adam contended: (1) that the superior court abused its discretion in denying a continuance of trial; (2) that it clearly erred in its factual findings; and, (3) that it abused its discretion in conditioning unsupervised visitation on Adam's completion of a psychological evaluation. Adam also contended that the trial judge was personally biased against him. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's judgment. View "Sagers v. Sackinger" on Justia Law

A court granted a default divorce to Amie Sey after her husband Willie Jackson, who was incarcerated at the time, failed to appear telephonically at a hearing. Jackson filed a motion for relief from judgment under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b), arguing that Sey had made misrepresentations and withheld information about marital property. The court allowed Jackson to conduct discovery in support of the motion, but it later dismissed the motion for lack of prosecution. The court also determined that the time to appeal or to request Rule 60(b) relief was long past. Jackson appealed, making several challenges to the underlying divorce decree. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of Jackson’s Rule 60(b) motion and remanded the case for consideration of its merits. View "Jackson v. Sey" on Justia Law

Michael Reilly and Jaime Vinette lived together and had a son, Barlow. Reilly stopped working in Alaska and moved to Butte, Montana, where he worked part time repairing and renting out homes and managing a bar. Vinette had custody of Barlow during the school year, and Reilly had custody for six weeks during the summer. Reilly moved to have his child support modified to reflect the fact that his income had fallen. Vinette countered that he was voluntarily underemployed. The superior court found that Reilly could work full time and that he was voluntarily and unreasonably underemployed. The court did not find Reilly’s testimony regarding the various reasons he alleged that prevented him from working as credible. The superior court imputed income to Reilly based on the average wage in southwestern Montana for career paths the court believed Reilly would be qualified to pursue. Reilly appealed, arguing that the imputation of income was improper, the amount to be imputed was calculated incorrectly, and the superior court erred in its written child support order by not including a visitation credit for his summers with Barlow. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s findings and orders, except that the Court remanded the child support order for a correction of a minor omission of visitation credit. View "Reilly v. Northrup" on Justia Law

A grandmother petitioned for visitation with her daughter’s four children. The superior court denied the petition, finding that the grandmother failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that visitation was in the best interests of the children. The grandmother appealed, arguing: (1) the superior court erred by applying the clear and convincing burden of proof; (2) the record did not support the superior court’s conclusion that the grandmother had not established ongoing personal contact with the children; and (3) the record did not support the superior court’s conclusion that the grandmother failed to prove visitation was in the best interests of the children. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court applied the correct burden of proof and that its conclusions were adequately supported by the evidence presented at trial. View "Hawkins v. Williams" on Justia Law

A husband and wife divorced in 2011. In their property settlement agreement, the wife would receive 55% of the marital estate and 50% of the marital share of the husband's military pension. The parties then disputed how to properly effectuate the settlement agreement. They submitted competing orders addressing the military pension division, and the superior court accepted the wife’s order. The husband appealed, arguing that: (1) he was denied the opportunity to present evidence; (2) the superior court violated federal law by dividing gross pay, disability pay, and more than 50% of disposable retirement pay; (3) the superior court’s final order awarding survivor benefits did not comply with the parties’ settlement agreement and ignored the parties’ stipulated length of marriage; (4) the superior court erred by awarding the wife additional compensation without explanation; and (5) the superior court incorrectly barred the parties’ children from survivor benefit coverage. Because the superior court ignored the stipulated length of marriage and awarded the wife a survivor benefit exceeding her share of the husband’s military pension, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded on those issues. Otherwise, the Court affirmed the superior court’s decision. View "Glover v. Ranney" on Justia Law