FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Ben Helzner
In Matter of Sasha J., 563 P.3d 602 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that courts are not necessarily precluded from determining whether an individual is incapacitated by a previous determination of that individual’s incapacity. (Id. at 610). In 2012, the Alaska superior court determined that Sasha was incapacitated and required guardianship. (Id. at 604). Sasha’s grandmother, Bella, acted as her guardian. (Id.). In 2014, the court terminated Bella’s guardianship. (Id.). Sasha’s family, including Bella, acted as Sasha’s informal caretakers. (Id.). In 2022, Adult Protective Services filed a petition for guardianship, but Sasha requested a jury trial on the issue of her incapacity. (Id.). The superior court denied the request because it believed that the issue of Sasha’s incapacity was precluded by the 2012 determination. (Id. at 606–07). The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed this decision, arguing that the superior court erred in its application of issue preclusion (also known as collateral estoppel). (Id. at 609). The Supreme Court of Alaska reasoned that the superior court did not make sufficient findings that the issue of Sasha’s incapacity in 2022 was identical to the issue in 2012. (Id.). Since incapacity is not static, a court must determine whether there are new facts before precluding an issue of incapacity (Id. at 610). The Supreme Court of Alaska remanded for proceedings to determine Sasha’s capacity. (Id.). The Supreme Court of Alaska held that courts are not necessarily precluded from determining whether an individual is incapacitated by a previous determination of that individual’s incapacity. (Id.).
