- Roman v. Karren
In Roman ...
- Cora G. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
In Cora G. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, the supreme court held that in child in need of aid (CINA) matters, an expert witness providing a statutorily-required opinion must be offered and affirmatively accepted as a qualified expert witness. The Office of Child Services (OCS) petitioned to terminate the parental ...
- Vogus v. Vogus
In Vogus v. Vogus, the supreme court held that when a superior court imputes income to an obligor parent, the court may base its calculation on either (1) concrete evidence of the obligor’s historical earnings—unless the obligor demonstrates that she is unable to achieve similar income—or (2) its specific findings of the obligor’s ...
- Angelica C. v. Jonathan C.
In Angelica C. v. Jonathan C., the supreme court held it was legal error to ignore the father’s sexual abuse of the mother when analyzing factors to determine best interests of the child in awarding custody. Jonathan pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree after sexually abusing ...
- M.M. through his next friend Kirkland v. State, Department of Administration
In M.M. ex rel. Kirkland v. State, Department of Administration, the supreme court held that (1) the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) could contract with third-party service providers to fulfill its duty of providing wards with in-person quarterly visits, and (2) a “next friend” could not be held personally liable for attorneys’ fees ...
- C.D. v. State
In C.D. v. State, the supreme court held that fairness required the court to establish an exclusionary rule whereby a minor’s own testimonial evidence at a waiver hearing could not subsequently be used against him as evidence in juvenile adjudication or adult criminal proceedings. 15-year-old C.D. was charged with first degree murder and ...
- State, Department of Health & Social Services v. Dara S
In State, Department of Health & Social Services v. Dara S., the supreme court held that the superior court did not clearly err by reinstating a mother’s parental rights, finding that this was in the best interest of the child. In a previous decision, the supreme court held that a superior court is ...
- Mauritsen v. Mauritsen
In Mauritsen v. Mauristen, the supreme court held that courts should interpret the phrase “presently resides” in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) consistently with “residency” in AS 0.01.10.055. In 2016, the superior court entered a custody agreement that provided equal shared physical custody between Mauritsen and Mauritsen (n/k/a) Taubert ...
- Rosenbaum v. Shaw
In Rosenbaum v. Shaw, the supreme court held that a father was not entitled to credit or reimbursement for overpaid child support when the mother was receiving children’s insurance benefit (CIB) payments from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in addition to the regular monthly child support payments from the father. In 2012, when ...
- In re Tiffany O.
In re Tiffany O.
In In re Tiffany O., 467 P.3d 1076 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that removing a guardian who relied on prayer instead of other reasonable forms of health care did not violate the Alaska Constitution’s free exercise clause due to the state’s compelling interest in protecting the ward. (Id. ...