Main Menu

Adam F. v. Caitlin B.

FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Abby Murray

In Adam F. v. Caitlin B., 551 P.3d 553 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision to temporarily suspend a father’s visitation with his child pending his engagement in a domestic violence intervention program (DVIP). Adam F. v. Caitlin B., 551 P.3d 553, 566 (Alaska 2024). Adam and Caitlin shared one child together. (Id. at 557). A July 2021 court order granted Adam supervised visitation for two hours, twice a week, conditioned on his continued participation in a DVIP program. (Id.). In December 2021, Caitlin filed a request to suspend Adam’s visitation because Adam had disengaged from the DVIP program and had committed domestic violence against his current partner. (Id.). After a two-day hearing, the superior court found that Adam had committed five instances of domestic violence. (Id. at 558–60). It also found that he was not engaged in the previously ordered DVIP program. (Id. at 560). The court initially ruled these were not extraordinary circumstances sufficient to revoke all visitation; however, two-days later, it reconsidered, and temporarily suspended visitation. (Id.). Adam could apply for supervised visitation again so long as he refrained from further acts of domestic violence and took steps to reenroll in a DVIP program. (Id.). Adam appealed, arguing the court failed explain its decision with “specific findings.” (Id. at 564). Ruling against Adam, the supreme court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in temporarily suspending his visitation. (Id. at 565). To the contrary, the lower court properly considered multiple factors in reaching its findings, balancing both Adam’s parental rights and the best interests of the child. (Id.). The court emphasized the risk of substantial harm that Adam’s coercive and controlling behavior posed to the child (i.e., Adam’s behavior would be internalized by the child and would influence her). (Id. at 566). This fear was informed by the court’s opportunity to observe and interact with Adam over an extended period of time. (Id.). Adam’s violent behavior was present in his relationship with Caitlin, and persisted into his current relationship. (Id.). Adam had not meaningfully engaged in a DVIP program, despite having been previously ordered to do so. (Id.). Additionally, the superior court gave Adam clear, achievable steps that he could take to restore his visitation. (Id.). Given the totality of these circumstances, the supreme court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in temporarily suspending Adam’s visitation. (Id.).

 

 

Adam F. v. Caitlin B.

FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Abby Murray

In Adam F. v. Caitlin B., 551 P.3d 553 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision to temporarily suspend a father’s visitation with his child pending his engagement in a domestic violence intervention program (DVIP). Adam F. v. Caitlin B., 551 P.3d 553, 566 (Alaska 2024). Adam and Caitlin shared one child together. (Id. at 557). A July 2021 court order granted Adam supervised visitation for two hours, twice a week, conditioned on his continued participation in a DVIP program. (Id.). In December 2021, Caitlin filed a request to suspend Adam’s visitation because Adam had disengaged from the DVIP program and had committed domestic violence against his current partner. (Id.). After a two-day hearing, the superior court found that Adam had committed five instances of domestic violence. (Id. at 558–60). It also found that he was not engaged in the previously ordered DVIP program. (Id. at 560). The court initially ruled these were not extraordinary circumstances sufficient to revoke all visitation; however, two-days later, it reconsidered, and temporarily suspended visitation. (Id.). Adam could apply for supervised visitation again so long as he refrained from further acts of domestic violence and took steps to reenroll in a DVIP program. (Id.). Adam appealed, arguing the court failed explain its decision with “specific findings.” (Id. at 564). Ruling against Adam, the supreme court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in temporarily suspending his visitation. (Id. at 565). To the contrary, the lower court properly considered multiple factors in reaching its findings, balancing both Adam’s parental rights and the best interests of the child. (Id.). The court emphasized the risk of substantial harm that Adam’s coercive and controlling behavior posed to the child (i.e., Adam’s behavior would be internalized by the child and would influence her). (Id. at 566). This fear was informed by the court’s opportunity to observe and interact with Adam over an extended period of time. (Id.). Adam’s violent behavior was present in his relationship with Caitlin, and persisted into his current relationship. (Id.). Adam had not meaningfully engaged in a DVIP program, despite having been previously ordered to do so. (Id.). Additionally, the superior court gave Adam clear, achievable steps that he could take to restore his visitation. (Id.). Given the totality of these circumstances, the supreme court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in temporarily suspending Adam’s visitation. (Id.).