In Saffir v. Wheeler,[1] the supreme court held that the superior court erred by failing to engage in proper symmetrical analysis of childcare stability and continuity in a child custody dispute, but did not abuse its discretion in not ordering protective measures to ensure the father’s sobriety while caring for the child. Saffir sought primary Continue Reading »
In Schwier v. Schwier,[1] the supreme court found that a father made a sufficient prima facie showing of changed circumstances which warranted an evidentiary hearing on a possible modification to an existing child support order. After being indicted on federal charges, Matthew Schwier was placed on house arrest and resigned from his job. Schwier filed Continue Reading »
In Steve H. v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the superior court did not clearly err in finding that a father had abandoned his child and terminating parental rights without consideration of the two-part common law test applied in other abandonment cases. Steve’s son was taken into emergency custody by the Office of Children’s Continue Reading »
In Thompson v. Thompson,[1] the supreme court held a 70/30 division of a fishing boat to be an inequitable split of marital property when the rest of the marital estate was divided 55/45. At some point during the marriage of Everett Thompson, a commercial fisherman, and Sharon Thompson, the couple purchased the fishing vessel F/V Continue Reading »
In Violet C. v. State, Department of Health & Social Service,[1] the supreme court held that the Office of Child Services (OCS) must make reasonable efforts to provide services to parents who face permanent termination of their parental rights, but its efforts need not be perfect. Following concerns over the mother’s substance abuse and the Continue Reading »
In Wilkins v. Wilkins,[1] the supreme court held that failure to value a party’s post-retirement health benefits for purposes of property division in legal separation or divorce proceedings is a reversible error. A key issue in the legal separation proceeding between Paul and Yvette Wilkins was ensuring that Ms. Wilkins’ was left with sufficient medical Continue Reading »
In Sam M. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court reiterated that courts must look to the Office of Children Services’ (OCS) efforts during the entirety of a case to assess whether it made active efforts to keep Indian children with their parents. Sam M. sought custody of his biological daughter Continue Reading »
In Buckley v. American Fast Freight, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that expressly prohibited activities do not fall within the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act’s definition of “arising out of and in the course of employment.” Buckley worked for Labor Ready, Inc., a temporary employment service. Through Labor Ready, he sometimes worked for American Fast Freight, Continue Reading »
In Morrison v. Alaska Interstate Construction Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that the substantial cause test under the 2005 amendments to the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act requires the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board to compare the causes of the need for medical treatment and decide compensation issues based on the most important or material cause. Morrison Continue Reading »
In Ross v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights,[1] the supreme court held an administrative agency’s determination to be without error when, despite evidence detracting from its ultimate decision, the agency concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of discrimination. Ross applied for the position of train master with the Alaska Railroad Corporation Continue Reading »
