In Joy B. v. Everett B.,[1] the supreme court held that the lower court could consider evidence other than the completion of a batterer’s program in determining whether a parent with a history of domestic violence overcame the rebuttable statutory presumption against his being awarded child custody. After a hearing on temporary orders, the trial court found that Everett B. had a history of domestic violence, giving rise to a rebuttable presumption that he should not be awarded custody. Everett attempted to enroll in an intervention program, but was rejected because a social worker determined that he had been the victim, not the perpetrator, of domestic violence. The trial court, relying on testimony from the social worker and a custody investigator, found that Everett had overcome the statutory presumption against him, and awarded him full custody. On appeal, Joy argued that the trial court erred, because Everett did not complete a batterer’s program, which is one of the three elements that must be satisfied in order to overcome the presumption. The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, explaining that while the first element “may” be satisfied by completing a batterer’s program, it also may be satisfied by other means. Everett satisfied the first element because the court found, based on expert testimony, that he would not benefit from the program and did not pose a future threat of domestic violence. The supreme court additionally found that the lower court did not err in also considering the nature and seriousness of the domestic violence. Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a parent with a history of domestic violence may overcame the rebuttable presumption against him in a custody dispute by means other than the completion of a batterer’s program.
[1] 451 P.3d 365 (Alaska 2019).
