- Berry v. Coulman
In Berry v. Coulman, the supreme court held that the definition of “residence of the obligor,” as that term is used in the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), means domicile. Following a 2011 court order, Berry was required to pay child support to Coulman monthly for their daughter. After Berry filed suit requesting sole ...
- Bill S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
In Bill S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, the Supreme Court held that clear and convincing evidence of active efforts to prevent the breakup of an Indian Family under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) must include documented efforts to provide specific assistance rather than vague and overgeneralized testimony. The Office of ...
- Brett M. v. Amanda M.
In Brett M. v. Amanda M., the supreme court upheld the superior court’s custody decision, finding that decision did not violate the law governing custody decisions. Amanda filed for divorce from her husband, Brett. During the marriage, Amanda was the primary caregiver while Brett provided financial support. Amanda wanted to move from Juneau to Oregon ...
- Charles S. v. State
In Charles S. v. State, the supreme court held a father’s successful completion of substance abuse treatment and two years of sobriety remedied his substance abuse issues and thus reversed the trial court’s termination of parental rights order. In 2015, the Office of Child Services (“OCS”) took Charles and Marian S.’s three children into custody. ...
- Dapo v. State, Office of Children’s Services
In Dapo v. State, Office of Children’s Services, the supreme court held that although the statute of repose applied to a claim for apportionment of fault, the claim may be covered by the statute’s exceptions for gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. In 2000, Office of Children’s Services (OCS) placed Dapo in Lucas’s foster ...
- Dena M. v. State, Department of Health – Social Services
In Dena M. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, the supreme court held it is not error to order termination of parental rights rather than guardianship if termination is in the child’s best interest. After the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) filed a petition to terminate parental rights, the superior court terminated the ...
- Downs v. Downs
In Downs v. Downs, the supreme court held that a spouse’s contributions to the marital estate may be considered when determining property division in a divorce proceeding. In the divorce proceeding between Errol and Deborah Downs, the superior court ordered an unequal property division in favor of Deborah. On appeal, Errol challenged the court’s property ...
- Dunn v. Jones
In Dunn v. Jones, the supreme court held it was not an abuse of discretion to calculate a parent’s annual income based on a single paystub in order to determine child support. Nicholas Ryan Dunn filed a motion to modify child support because his income had decreased. The trial court calculated his income based on ...
- Eva H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
In Eva H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, the supreme court held a guardian ad litem with no formal training in social work did not satisfy the heightened standard required by the Indian Child Welfare Act to qualify as an expert witness. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) petitioned to terminate the ...
- Faris v. Taylor
In Faris v. Taylor, the supreme court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it held the date of the parties’ separation was the date the court issued the divorce decree. Taylor and Faris were married in 1973, but after a promotion Faris moved to Hawaii and then Oregon while Taylor remained ...
