FAMILY LAW Kate Goldberg 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 Continue Reading »
FAMILY LAW Natalie Howard 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 Continue Reading »
FAMILY LAW / NATIVE LAW Jacob Keohane Matter of April S. In the Matter of April S., 467 P.3d 1091 (Alaska, 2020), the supreme court ruled that an out-of-state mental health professional qualified as an expert under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), given the severity of the child’s psychiatric conditions. The ICWA requires Continue Reading »
In Berry v. Coulman,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In Bill S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In Brett M. v. Amanda M.,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In Charles S. v. State,[1] 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. Continue Reading »
In Dapo v. State, Office of Children’s Services,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In Dena M. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
In Downs v. Downs,[1] 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 Continue Reading »
