Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A mother living in Alaska filed a petition in Alaska to enforce summer visitation with her son, who lived in Tennessee with his father. After the superior court resolved the visitation issue, the father appealed, arguing that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case or, in the alternative, that the superior court should have voluntarily ceded jurisdiction to Tennessee because Alaska was an inconvenient forum. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court had jurisdiction to hear the case and did not abuse its discretion by deciding that Alaska was not an inconvenient forum. View "Steven D. v. Nicole J." on Justia Law

Grandparents were permitted to adopt their grandchild without the consent of the biological father. The superior court found that the father's consent was not required because he failed significantly without justifiable cause to communicate meaningfully with the child for a period of at least one year. On appeal, the father did not challenge the superior court's finding that he failed to communicate meaningfully with the child for at least the year-long period; he argued that this failure was justified by: (1) his incarceration; (2) an agreement he allegedly had with the child's biological mother; (3) alleged interference by the grandparents; and (4) the totality of the circumstances. The father also argued that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to consider visitation rights and by awarding attorney's fees against him. Because the record did not support the father's argument that his failure to communicate meaningfully with the child was justified, the Supreme Court concluded the superior court did not clearly err in finding that this failure was unjustified. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court's finding that the father waived his right to consent to the adoption. Because the issue of visitation rights was not raised before the superior court, the Court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider the issue. Finally, because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees against the father, the Court affirmed that award. View "David S. v. Jared H." on Justia Law

Maryna and Kenneth Stanhope divorced in 2010. The superior court divided the marital property 50/50, awarding the marital home to Maryna on condition she remove Kenneth from the mortgage and make an equalization payment. Kenneth appealed the division of property, claiming the house was his separate non-marital property, or that the superior court did not divide the marital property 50/50. Finding no abuse of the superior court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Stanhope v. Stanhope" on Justia Law

The parties in this case divorced in 1992. The divorce decree did not divide their property. The husband received military retirement benefits; the wife filed a motion seeking a post decree equitable division of property. The husband opposed, arguing that the wife's claim was barred by: (1) the statute of limitations; (2) laches; and (3) estoppel. The superior court concluded that the wife could properly bring her motion, that her motion was not barred by the statute of limitations, and that laches barred only the retrospective division of the husband's retirement benefits. The husband appealed. Because the wife's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the wife was entitled to a prospective division of retirement benefits, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court with respect to these issues. However, because the court erred in setting the effective date of the property division, the case was remanded with instructions to correct the effective date. View "Schaub v. Schaub" on Justia Law

Olga Villars sued her former husband, Richard Villars, for his failure to pay spousal support in 2010. Following a trial at which both parties appeared, the trial court ruled that the amount Richard owed Olga had to be reduced to account for (1) the smaller size of her household while her daughter was living with Richard, (2) the lower federal poverty level in California, where Olga had moved, (3) the substantial contributions for support Olga received from her second husband, and (4) Olga’s earned income. Olga appealed these rulings. Because the Supreme Court found that the trial court clearly erred in its calculation of the amount of support contributed by Olga’s second husband, the case was remanded for further consideration of that issue. View "Villars v. Villars" on Justia Law

After a father left his job with Alaska and moved to Nevada, he left the mother with primary physical custody of their daughter. The mother filed a motion to modify child support. The superior court ordered a modification and imputed income to the father after concluding that the father appeared unmotivated to find employment because he was apparently content to collect unemployment benefits. The superior court also expressed concern that the father had not sufficiently planned for how he would meet his child support obligations in the event that he could not find work in Nevada. The father subsequently found a state job in Nevada that paid substantially less than his imputed income, and he moved to modify and reduce his child support obligation. The superior court denied the father’s request. The father argued on appeal that the superior court abused its discretion in imputing income, erred in the amount that it imputed, and abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify his child support obligation. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not provide a sufficient factual basis for its denial of the father’s motion to modify child support, it vacated the superior court’s order and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Petrilla v. Petrilla" on Justia Law

The husband in this case was ordered to pay spousal support for an indefinite time period. More than three years later after that order, before a different judge, the wife sought relief for the husband's failure to pay any spousal support. The husband moved motion to set aside the original spousal support award, arguing the judgment was void: (1) for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction at trial; and (2) because he had not received due process. The superior court granted the husband's motion. The wife appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: the Court found that the husband used Rule 60(b)(4) not to attack a void judgment, but as a substitute for a timely appeal. Furthermore, the Court found the husband had adequate notice of the issues to be litigated, was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give testimony. Therefore the Court concluded the trial court granted husband's motion in error. View "Blaufuss v. Ball" on Justia Law

At the heart of this appeal, a custody dispute between Appellant Aaron Rosenblum and Appellee Angelica Perales. The trial court awarded appellee custody, child support and interim attorney's fees. Appellant argued that the court's custody decision was flawed for a lack of the requisite findings, gave disproportionate weight to a single factor, and was based on an improper factor. Furthermore, appellant argued the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the child support order and in the award of attorney's fees. After its review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed decisions on child custody and attorney's fees. The Court remanded the case for clarification on child support. View "Rosenblum v. Perales" on Justia Law

Appellant David McCarter claimed the superior court erred by failing to make statute-mandated findings in his appeal related to the enforcement of a property settlement agreement in his divorce from Appellee Deborah McCarter. Appellant also argued that the superior court erred in failing to vacate certain ambiguous provisions of that agreement or to allow for its modification. Finding no error in the superior court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCarter v. McCarter" on Justia Law

Appellant Patricia Beals appealed the superior court's property division in her divorce from Appellee Mark Beals. She argued that the court incorrectly characterized a lot that she and Mark jointly purchase with cash obtained from refinancing the marital home as separate property. Mark owned the marital home before the parties married. In addition, Patricia argued the court erroneously valued the mortgage on the marital home at the time of separation rather than at the time of trial. Because the entire value of the jointly titled lot should have been characterized as marital property, and because the home's equity should have been valued as of the time of trial, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Beals v. Beals" on Justia Law