Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Christopher C. and Therese C.'s parental rights were terminated as to the couple's four children. The trial court relied primarily on evidence that neither parent had acquired the basic skills necessary to parent their children despite more than a year of training by the Department of Health & Social Services' Office of Children's Services. The Supreme Court after its review concluded that the trial court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore the Court affirmed the termination of the parties' parental rights. View "Christopher C. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

The Office of Children's Services (OCS) placed a Native child in a non-Native foster home while working with the other towards reunification. Over two years later, the superior court terminated the parents' parental rights. The child's maternal grandmother and the tribe sought to enforce the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) placement preferences. The foster parents petitioned for adoption. The superior court found good cause to deviate from the ICWA preference, and that the grandmother was not a suitable placement for the child. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the tribe argued the superior court erred by applying the wrong standard of proof for the good cause determination; that the court's findings were not supported by sufficient evidence; and that the findings were not sufficient to support the good cause determination. The Supreme Court found that the ICWA implicitly mandated that good cause to deviate from ICWA's adoptive placement preferences be proved by clear and convincing evidence. To the extent prior cases held otherwise, they were overruled. Therefore the superior court was vacated here and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Native Village of Tununak v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Five years after divorcing, the parties in this case sought to modify their divorce decree. The Superior Court found that circumstances had not changed sufficiently for either to justify modification of the child custody agreement, but the court did allow changes in visitation, child support, life insurance and attorney's fees. The father appealed those changes. Because the child support modification was erroneously calculated, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the Superior Court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The lower court was affirmed in all other respects. View "Martin v. Martin" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the custody and child support arrangement between Ronny M. and Nanette H. with respect to their two minor children, Ronny Jr. and Lavar, both of whom were born in Florida. Ronny and Nanette dated for several years after the births of their children but broke up in 2002 following a significant history of domestic violence by Ronny against Nanette. In 2002 the Florida Department of Children and Families became involved and set up a case plan that significantly limited Ronny's visitation rights. Ronny complied with the case plan and eventually worked his way up to unsupervised visitation with the children, but in 2007 he stopped seeing or contacting them altogether. In 2009 Nanette married and moved to Alaska with the children without informing Ronny. In 2010 Nanette filed a complaint in which she sought sole legal and primary physical custody of the children. Nanette also requested child support. Ronny opposed, requesting that the parties share joint legal custody and that he be awarded primary physical custody. The superior court awarded primary physical custody to Nanette and a modified form of joint legal custody to Nanette and Ronny. The superior court also granted Ronny summer visitation rights, provided that he pay for the travel expenses, and ordered Ronny to pay child support. Ronny appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's child custody and support award, but reversed and remanded regarding the allocation of visitation expenses. The superior court was affirmed in all other respects. View "Ronny M. v. Nanette H." on Justia Law

A mother, appearing pro se, appealed a child support order. She claimed that the superior court erred in requiring her to pay child support to a father who shared physical custody and erred in refusing to allow a deduction for her direct support of two children from a prior relationship. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the support order was justified despite the shared custody, but the Court vacated the order and remanded the case back to the superior court for consideration of the deduction that Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 allowed for the mothers' direct support of her other children. View "O'Neal v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Jerry Scott and Camilla Hussein-Scott divorced, signing a marital settlement agreement requiring Jerry to pay alimony every month. On the line reserved for the alimony termination date, Jerry wrote "12/2/2020," which was the 18th birthday of their youngest daughter. On the next line, in a space left blank for "other specifics," Jerry wrote, "To be paid until Yasmine Scott's 18th birthday or until remarriage." Yasmine is the couple's middle daughter, and her 18th birthday is August 1, 2015. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Jerry's alimony obligation ended on the earlier date or the later one. "Relying on the well-established rule that the more important or principal clause controls, we conclude that Jerry's support obligation terminates on December 2, 2020, or upon Camilla's remarriage if earlier." View "Hussein-Scott v. Scott" on Justia Law

In May 2011, the superior court modified an existing child support order, specifying that the modification was to be effective as of March 2007. But because the motion requesting modification was not filed until February 2008, the superior court’s order constituted a retroactive modification. Furthermore, the superior court modified the child support award based on its finding that the father’s income exceeded the maximum amount specified in Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3(c)(2). Because retroactive modification of child support is prohibited and because the superior court’s determination of the amount owed did not conform to the analysis specified in Rule 90.3(a), the Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s modification of the child support order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Swaney v. Granger" on Justia Law

Appellant Simone Greenway sued Appellee Larry Heathcott alleging among other things, identity theft and breach of domestic partnership and fiduciary duties. After a bench trial at which both parties were pro se, the superior court denied Appellant's claims. She argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in denying her a continuance so a particular lawyer could represent her when he became available, so she could compose her case, and so she could obtain testimony from a witness whose subpoena was quashed. She also argued that the court failed to help her sufficiently and failed to explain she could call the witnesses telephonically after it rejected her witness affidavits. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion as to these issues. She also asserted that the trial judge was biased, or appeared to be biased, against her. The audio recording of the trial refuted those assertions and demonstrated that the trial judge was impartial, patient, and courteous in dealing with Greenway and in trying to obtain understandable evidence from her. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court's judgment. View "Greenway v. Heathcott" on Justia Law

Thea G. challenged the superior court’s order terminating her parental rights to her two children, twelve-year old Zach, and six-year old Abbie. The superior court terminated Thea’s parental rights based on her unremedied substance abuse issues. Thea raised three issues on appeal: (1) the superior court’s finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) made active efforts to prevent the breakup of her family; (2) the finding that if her custody over Zach and Abbie were continued the children would likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage; and (3) the finding that termination of her parental rights is in Zach’s and Abbie’s best interests. Because each of these findings was supported by sufficient evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order terminating Thea’s parental rights to Zach and Abbie. View "Thea G. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Malcolm D. and Mallory D. were married and had three children, Jason, Brooke, and Megan. In August 2009 Malcolm and Mallory filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties agreed to joint legal custody and shared physical custody. In May 2010 Mallory moved to modify custody; she wanted sole legal and primary physical custody of Brooke and Megan, as well as additional visitation with Jason. Mallory asserted a change in circumstances because Brooke reported being singled out among the children for punishment and Malcolm being mean to her. Malcolm opposed, contending there was no change in circumstance to warrant custody modification and that the modification would not be in the best interests of the children. The superior court found that there was a change in circumstance regarding Brooke and Megan but denied Mallory's motion to modify custody for the daughters. Upon its review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that when both parents are found to have a history of domestic violence and neither parent is more likely to perpetrate violence than the other, the superior court has the discretion to determine that the presumption set forth in AS 25.24.150(g) does not apply. Furthermore, the Court Concluded that the superior court did not clearly err when making its factual findings and did not abuse its discretion when it weighed the best interest factors under AS 25.24.150(c) and determined that custody should not be modified. View "Mallory D. v. Malcolm D." on Justia Law