Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Kyle S. appealed a superior court decision that adjudicated his teenage daughter Jane a child in need of aid. Jane was taken into State custody when she was 15 years old, after she reported being physically abused by her stepmother. The superior court based its decision on Jane's propensity to run away; it made no findings about either Kyle or his wife. At the time of the adjudication hearing, Jane had several criminal charges pending. Kyle challenged the trial court's adjudication decision, arguing that the statutory subsection about runaways was unconstitutional as applied to him and that the court incorrectly concluded that the State made active efforts to prevent the family's breakup. Upon careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded Kyle waived his constitutional argument by not raising it earlier and because the superior court's active-efforts decision was supported by the record. View "Kyle S. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Preceding trial, the superior court suggested the parties could introduce evidence regarding an interim custody order at a subsequent hearing, so that they would have more time to reach a final settlement. During the next hearing, both parties expressed some uncertainty about the purpose of the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made findings to support a final custody judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that this procedure violated the mother's right to due process of law. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for a new custody trial. View "Debra P. v. Laurence S." on Justia Law

Chloe O. had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues. OCS took Chloe's fifteen-month-old daughter, Ashanti, into emergency custody because of Chloe's drug abuse, suicide attempts, assaultive behaviors, and affinity for unsafe people and situations. OCS made many unsuccessful attempts to assist Chloe in obtaining treatment for her substance abuse issues and, eventually, for her mental health issues. Following a trial, Chloe's parental rights to Ashanti were terminated. Chloe appealed the trial court's termination order on several grounds, one being that OCS failed to try to reunify Chloe's family. Before briefing was completed the parties agreed that the case should be remanded to allow the trial court to reconsider the active efforts question under the correct evidentiary standard. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that OCS had made active efforts to reunify Chloe's family. Chloe appealed the trial court's finding and ultimately, the court's decision to terminate her parental rights. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed in all respects. View "Chloe O. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Claudio P. was incarcerated before his daughter Iris was born and was likely to remain incarcerated for a significant portion of Iris's childhood. Iris was taken into State custody in June 2010 due to her mother's substance abuse and unsafe conditions in her home. Claudio's mother requested that Iris be placed with her, but she was unable to maintain stable housing. Claudio provided the name of his father, who lived in South Dakota, as another placement option. OCS requested home studies under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children for each of Claudio's parents. Both home studies came back with positive recommendations shortly before the termination trial. Following the trial, the trial court terminated Claudio's parental rights to Iris and noted that Iris's permanent placement would be determined at a subsequent hearing. Claudio argued that the trial court erred by terminating his rights because OCS should have taken more action to place Iris with one of his parents. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that OCS's investigation of Claudio's placement request was reasonable and timely, and that each of the trial court's challenged findings was supported by substantial evidence. View "Claudio P. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A mother appealed an order that modified her child support obligation. She argued that the court improperly calculated the father's self-employment income and also erred by imputing a 40-hour workweek when calculating her income. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court agreed that the court did not conduct a sufficient review of the father's business expenses, reimbursements, and in-kind contributions to determine his adjusted annual income for child support purposes. And the superior court erred in finding mother was underemployed. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded for recalculation of the child support award. View "Mallory D. v. Malcom D." on Justia Law

The parties in this dispute initially lived together in Alaska, but when relationship ended before the birth of their daughter, the mother relocated to California. After lengthy litigation, the superior court awarded the father primary custody based on its findings that: (1) the father was more likely to foster a close and continuing relationship between the mother and the child; (2) the stability factor slightly favored the father; and (3) the mother’s flexibility in caring for the child would be slightly limited due to the impending birth of her second child. The mother appealed, arguing that the superior court's findings were clearly erroneous. She also argued that the court erred in its application of the custody statute, in disregarding the custody investigator’s recommendations, and in formulating various aspects of the final custody order. After its review, the Supreme Court affirmed the custody order, but remanded on the issue of visitation costs to clarify ambiguity in the court’s order. View "Nancy M. v. John M." on Justia Law

Joshua Wilhour moved for modification of child support based on his recent relocation to share custody of his son, and because his income had been reduced. Joshua and his former wife Jacqueline each alleged the other was voluntarily unemployed (or underemployed). The trial court modified child support based on Joshua's income on what he had earned before he moved. Joshua appealed that calculation, and the trial court's denial of his request for a hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing and for reconsideration of the effective date of the modification. View "Wilhour v. Wilhour" on Justia Law

Four children tested positive at birth for cocaine. After the fourth child was born, the Office of Children's Services (OCS) took custody of the child and placed him with his maternal grandmother. Based on the mother's history of untreated substance abuse, OCS filed a petition for termination of the her parental rights months after the child was born. After trial, the superior court concluded that termination was in the best interests of the child. The mother appealed, arguing that she was not given a reasonable time to remedy her substance abuse issues, that OCS did not exercise reasonable efforts over the short period prior to termination, and that termination eight months after birth was not in her child's best interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court because it properly considered the mother's history with OCS, her conduct after the child's birth, and the best interests of the child. View "Amy M. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

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