FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Jack Jeffrey
In Oscar M. v. Marilyn P., 555 P.3d 40 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held a child cannot intervene in their parent’s custody case when the court has already been provided with enough information about the child’s preferences to render intervention unnecessary. (Id. at 46). Oscar M.’s custody was transferred from Marilyn P., Oscar’s mother, to Shawn M., Oscar’s father, after Marilyn committed an act of assault or reckless endangerment against Shawn (Id. at 43–44). Oscar, through an attorney, filed a motion to intervene in his parent’s custody dispute because the dispute would determine where he lived. (Id. at 44). However, the Superior Court denied the motion as Oscar’s preferences were already adequately represented, and the addition of another party would serve merely to add additional litigious proceedings. (Id. at 45). The supreme court noted that Alaska Statute 25.24.310 does not mandate that a minor be allowed to intervene in custody litigation. Further, the supreme court noted that while the statute grants the court the option to hear from a minor through appointed counsel, the statute suggests this is a matter of discretion for the court and should only be undertaken when the appointment of counsel is deemed necessary. (Id. at 47). The supreme court dictates that it is only necessary when the minor’s preferences have not already adequately been provided to the court. (Id. at 47–48). The supreme court affirmed, holding that a child cannot intervene in their parent’s custody case when the court has already been provided with enough information about their preferences to render intervention unnecessary. (Id. at 46).
